# New City Catechism



## chuckd

I haven't read it yet...Catechism

*Why a New Catechism?*

Historically catechisms were written with at least three purposes. The first was to set forth a comprehensive exposition of the gospel — not only in order to explain clearly what the gospel is, but also to lay out the building blocks on which the gospel is based, such as the biblical doctrine of God, of human nature, of sin, and so forth. The second purpose was to do this exposition in such a way that the heresies, errors, and false beliefs of the time and culture were addressed and counteracted. The third and more pastoral purpose was to form a distinct people, a counter-culture that reflected the likeness of Christ not only in individual character but also in the church's communal life.

When looked at together, these three purposes explain why new catechisms must be written. While our exposition of gospel doctrine must be in line with older catechisms that are true to the Word, culture changes, and so do the errors, temptations, and challenges that we must be equipped to face and answer.


----------



## Scott1

The Westminster Shorter Catechism was written for children 400 years ago. 
I'm not sure why one Minister would want his name on a collection of selective catechism questions. Not sure of the intended purpose or what need is perceived to exist.


----------



## Wayne

From the song with those very same words.

"If it was good enough for Samuel..."


----------



## Covenant Joel

I applaud the effort to create a catechism that will will use modern language, address some issues not covered in the WSC, and impact more people than just those in Presbyterian denominations.

Having said that, I wonder how well this catechism will fill the niche it's supposed to. I have not yet had a chance to look through it. I also wonder, given its length (52 questions, one for each week), how well it will address the areas that it needs to.


----------



## Romans922

It may be helpful to have the questions and answers before us.



Q 1 What is our only hope in life and death?
That we are not our own but belong, body and soul, both in life and death, to 
God and to our Savior Jesus Christ. 

Q 2 What is God? 
God is the creator and sustainer of everyone and everything. He is eternal,
infinite, and unchangeable in his power and perfection, goodness and glory, 
wisdom, justice, and truth. Nothing happens except through him and by his will.

Q 3 How many persons are there in God?
There are three persons in the one true and living God: the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. They are the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Q 4 How and why did God create us?
God created us male and female in his own image to know him, love him, live 
with him, and glorify him. And it is right that we who were created by God 
should live to his glory.

Q 5 What else did God create?
God created all things by his powerful Word, and all his creation was very 
good; everything flourished under his loving rule. 

Q 6 How can we glorify God? 
We glorify God by enjoying him, loving him, trusting him, and by obeying his 
will, commands, and law.

Q 7 What does the law of God require?
Personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience; that we love God with all our heart, 
soul, mind, and strength; and love our neighbor as ourselves. What God forbids 
should never be done and what God commands should always be done.

Q 8 What is the law of God stated in the Ten Commandments?
You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol
in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the 
waters below—you shall not bow down to them or worship them. You shall not 
misuse the name of the LORD your God. Remember the Sabbath day by 
keeping it holy. Honor your father and your mother. You shall not murder. You 
shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false 
testimony. You shall not covet.

Q 9 What does God require in the first, second, and third 
commandments?
First, that we know and trust God as the only true and living God. Second, 
that we avoid all idolatry and do not worship God improperly. Third, that we 
treat God’s name with fear and reverence, honoring also his Word and works.

Q 10 What does God require in the fourth and fifth commandments?
Fourth, that on the Sabbath day we spend time in public and private worship 
of God, rest from routine employment, serve the Lord and others, and so 
anticipate the eternal Sabbath. Fifth, that we love and honor our father and our 
mother, submitting to their godly discipline and direction.

Q 11 What does God require in the sixth, seventh, and eighth 
commandments? 
Sixth, that we do not hurt, or hate, or be hostile to our neighbor, but be patient 
and peaceful, pursuing even our enemies with love. Seventh, that we abstain 
from sexual immorality and live purely and faithfully, whether in marriage or in 
single life, avoiding all impure actions, looks, words, thoughts, or desires, and 
whatever might lead to them. Eighth, that we do not take without permission 
that which belongs to someone else, nor withhold any good from someone we 
might benefit.

Q 12 What does God require in the ninth and tenth commandments? 
Ninth, that we do not lie or deceive, but speak the truth in love. Tenth, that we 
are content, not envying anyone or resenting what God has given them or us.

Q 13 Can anyone keep the law of God perfectly?
Since the fall, no mere human has been able to keep the law of God perfectly, 
but consistently breaks it in thought, word, and deed. 

Q 14 Did God create us unable to keep his law? 
No, but because of the disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, all of 
creation is fallen; we are all born in sin and guilt, corrupt in our nature and 
unable to keep God’s law.

Q 15 Since no one can keep the law, what is its purpose? 
That we may know the holy nature and will of God, and the sinful nature and 
disobedience of our hearts; and thus our need of a Savior. The law also 
teaches and exhorts us to live a life worthy of our Savior.

Q 16 What is sin?
Sin is rejecting or ignoring God in the world he created, rebelling against him 
by living without reference to him, not being or doing what he requires in his 
law—resulting in our death and the disintegration of all creation. 

Q 17 What is idolatry?
Idolatry is trusting in created things rather than the Creator for our hope and 
happiness, significance and security.

Q 18 Will God allow our disobedience and idolatry to go unpunished?
No, every sin is against the sovereignty, holiness, and goodness of God, and 
against his righteous law, and God is righteously angry with our sins and will 
punish them in his just judgment both in this life, and in the life to come.

Q 19 Is there any way to escape punishment and be brought back into 
God’s favor?
Yes, to satisfy his justice, God himself, out of mere mercy, reconciles us to himself
and delivers us from sin and from the punishment for sin, by a Redeemer.

Q 20 Who is the Redeemer?
The only Redeemer is the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, in whom 
God became man and bore the penalty for sin himself.PART 2 
Christ, redemption, grace.

Q 21 What sort of Redeemer is needed to bring us back to God?
One who is truly human and also truly God. 

Q 22 Why must the Redeemer be truly human?
That in human nature he might on our behalf perfectly obey the whole law and 
suffer the punishment for human sin; and also that he might sympathize with 
our weaknesses. 

Q 23 Why must the Redeemer be truly God?
That because of his divine nature his obedience and suffering would be 
perfect and effective; and also that he would be able to bear the righteous 
anger of God against sin and yet overcome death. 

Q 24 Why was it necessary for Christ, the Redeemer, to die? 
Since death is the punishment for sin, Christ died willingly in our place to 
deliver us from the power and penalty of sin and bring us back to God. By his 
substitutionary atoning death, he alone redeems us from hell and gains for us 
forgiveness of sin, righteousness, and everlasting life.

Q 25 Does Christ’s death mean all our sins can be forgiven?
Yes, because Christ’s death on the cross fully paid the penalty for our sin, 
God graciously imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as if it were our own and
will remember our sins no more. 

Q 26 What else does Christ’s death redeem?
Christ’s death is the beginning of the redemption and renewal of every part of 
fallen creation, as he powerfully directs all things for his own glory and 
creation’s good.

Q 27 Are all people, just as they were lost through Adam, saved through Christ?
No, only those who are elected by God and united to Christ by faith.
Nevertheless God in his mercy demonstrates common grace even to those 
who are not elect, by restraining the effects of sin and enabling works of 
culture for human well-being.

Q 28 What happens after death to those not united to Christ by faith?
At the day of judgment they will receive the fearful but just sentence of 
condemnation pronounced against them. They will be cast out from the favorable
presence of God, into hell, to be justly and grievously punished, forever.

Q 29 How can we be saved? 
Only by faith in Jesus Christ and in his substitutionary atoning death on the 
cross; so even though we are guilty of having disobeyed God and are still 
inclined to all evil, nevertheless, God, without any merit of our own but only by 
pure grace, imputes to us the perfect righteousness of Christ when we repent 
and believe in him. 

Q 30 What is faith in Jesus Christ?
Faith in Jesus Christ is acknowledging the truth of everything that God has 
revealed in his Word, trusting in him, and also receiving and resting on him 
alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the gospel. 

Q 31 What do we believe by true faith?
Everything taught to us in the gospel. The Apostles’ Creed expresses what we 
believe in these words: We believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of 
heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was 
conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius 
Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third 
day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at 
the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from there he will come to judge 
the living and the dead. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, 
the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, 
and the life everlasting.

Q 32 What do justification and sanctification mean?
Justification means our declared righteousness before God, made possible by 
Christ’s death and resurrection for us. Sanctification means our gradual, 
growing righteousness, made possible by the Spirit’s work in us.

Q 33 Should those who have faith in Christ seek their salvation through 
their own works, or anywhere else?
No, they should not, as everything necessary to salvation is found in Christ. To 
seek salvation through good works is a denial that Christ is the only 
Redeemer and Savior. 

Q 34 Since we are redeemed by grace alone, through Christ alone, must 
we still do good works and obey God’s Word? 
Yes, because Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, also renews us by his 
Spirit; so that our lives may show love and gratitude to God; so that we may 
be assured of our faith by the fruits; and so that by our godly behavior others 
may be won to Christ. 

Q 35 Since we are redeemed by grace alone, through faith alone, where 
does this faith come from?
All the gifts we receive from Christ we receive through the Holy Spirit, 
including faith itself.PART 3 
Spirit, restoration, growing in grace.

Q 36 What do we believe about the Holy Spirit? 
That he is God, coeternal with the Father and the Son, and that God grants 
him irrevocably to all who believe. 

Q 37 How does the Holy Spirit help us?
The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin, comforts us, guides us, gives us spiritual gifts and 
the desire to obey God; and he enables us to pray and to understand God’s Word.

Q 38 What is prayer? 
Prayer is pouring out our hearts to God in praise, petition, confession of sin, 
and thanksgiving.

Q 39 With what attitude should we pray?
With love, perseverance, and gratefulness; in humble submission to God’s will, 
knowing that, for the sake of Christ, he always hears our prayers. 

Q 40 What should we pray? 
The whole Word of God directs and inspires us in what we should pray, 
including the prayer Jesus himself taught us.

Q 41 What is the Lord’s Prayer?
Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be 
done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us 
our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into 
temptation, but deliver us from evil. 

Q 42 How is the Word of God to be read and heard? 
With diligence, preparation, and prayer; so that we may accept it with faith, 
store it in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.

Q 43 What are the sacraments or ordinances?
The sacraments or ordinances given by God and instituted by Christ, namely 
baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are visible signs and seals that we are bound 
together as a community of faith by his death and resurrection. By our use of them 
the Holy Spirit more fully declares and seals the promises of the gospel to us.

Q 44 What is baptism? 
Baptism is the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit; it signifies and seals our adoption into Christ, our cleansing from 
sin, and our commitment to belong to the Lord and to his church.

Q 45 Is baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?
No, only the blood of Christ and the renewal of the Holy Spirit can cleanse us 
from sin. 

Q 46 What is the Lord’s Supper? 
Christ commanded all Christians to eat bread and to drink from the cup in 
thankful remembrance of him and his death. The Lord’s Supper is a celebration 
of the presence of God in our midst; bringing us into communion with God and 
with one another; feeding and nourishing our souls. It also anticipates the day 
when we will eat and drink with Christ in his Father’s kingdom. 

Q 47 Does the Lord’s Supper add anything to Christ’s atoning work?
No, Christ died once for all. The Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal celebrating 
Christ’s atoning work; as it is also a means of strengthening our faith as we 
look to him, and a foretaste of the future feast. But those who take part with 
unrepentant hearts eat and drink judgment on themselves. 

Q 48 What is the church? 
God chooses and preserves for himself a community elected for eternal life 
and united by faith, who love, follow, learn from, and worship God together.
God sends out this community to proclaim the gospel and prefigure Christ’s 
kingdom by the quality of their life together and their love for one another. 

Q 49 Where is Christ now? 
Christ rose bodily from the grave on the third day after his death and is 
seated at the right hand of the Father, ruling his kingdom and interceding for 
us, until he returns to judge and renew the whole world.

Q 50 What does Christ’s resurrection mean for us? 
Christ triumphed over sin and death by being physically resurrected, so that 
all who trust in him are raised to new life in this world and to everlasting life in 
the world to come. Just as we will one day be resurrected, so this world will 
one day be restored. But those who do not trust in Christ will be raised to 
everlasting death. 

Q 51 Of what advantage to us is Christ's ascension?
Christ physically ascended on our behalf, just as he came down to earth 
physically on our account, and he is now advocating for us in the presence of 
his Father, preparing a place for us, and also sends us his Spirit.

Q 52 What hope does everlasting life hold for us?
It reminds us that this present fallen world is not all there is; soon we will live 
with and enjoy God forever in the new city, in the new heaven and the new 
earth, where we will be fully and forever freed from all sin and will inhabit 
renewed, resurrection bodies in a renewed, restored creation.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Thanks for posting the Q&A, Andrew. 

Having scanned through it, it's clear that it draws on the WSC heavily at many points. Overall, it seems fairly good, though I don't think the answers flow really well. Also, Q 44 on baptism seems clearly designed to appeal to baptists as well as paedobaptists, though I question the language of commitment as what it is a sign of.


----------



## Scott1

We already have a superb concise study guide for the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Although for children, it's also suitable for adults:
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM 2ND EDITION IN ONE V


----------



## Miss Marple

From a quick layman's impression, I miss the word "covenant" in 43, 44, 46. It is been most helpful for me to know that baptism and the Lord's Supper are seals of the covenant.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Scott1 said:


> We already have a superb concise study guide for the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Although for children, it's also suitable for adults:
> CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM 2ND EDITION IN ONE V



Having good other material does not preclude us from developing good newer material as well. This new effort seems to have a different purpose than the original WSC, and the study material incorporates video, etc., which the WSC study guide does not.

Though the new one will likely never be able to replace the WSC, as it is more of a supplement. I'm too steeped in the WSC (having memorized it as a kid and then again in seminary) to switch to something like this.


----------



## Tim

This seems less comprehensive than even the Westminster Shorter Catechism. It also seems less precise (e.g., the questions on baptism and the church). I don't know that the new work addresses any issues not addressed already by the Westminster or other historic catechisms.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Tim said:


> This seems less comprehensive than even the Westminster Shorter Catechism. It also seems less precise (e.g., the questions on baptism and the church). I don't know that the new work addresses any issues not addressed already by the Westminster or other historic catechisms.



I do find that to be a bit curious. In the intro, it seemed to be suggesting that the intent was to address questions not dealt with by older catechisms. From the text above, it doesn't seem like that's the case.


----------



## Jack K

I don't see where this addresses issues particular to our culture and times more than the older catechisms do. It seems to me that the main difference between this and the Westminister Shorter or the Heidelberg (it draws on both) is its length. This is much shorter. You could call it a summary. And since the original, longer catechisms were considered summaries in their day, it's actally a summary of a summary.

That could be both helpful and troubling. Summaries are useful at times. They can give a quick foundation in some basics. They can also pique interest in further study. They can attract people who'd be intimidated to look at a longer catechism.

But summaries also might appeal to the impatient, no-time-for-deeper-study mindset of the current Western church. People could start to figure that as long as they've gone over a very brief catechism such as this, they're okay. There's no reason to invest any time into studying the older, longer ones. And that would be a shame.

It's difficult to know, sometimes, how brief you ought to be. Kids, parents and teachers these days all have short attention spans when it comes to theology. Yet, often they also crave depth. I wouldn't automatically reject this catechism, but I'd probably try to steer most students toward something that went into more detail and had more depth.


----------



## Romans922

I would like to say after reading through these that they aren't that much shorter than WSC. The answers seem to be longer than most shorter catechism answers. Though as a whole it has less questions (55 less).


----------



## Tim

Jack K said:


> That could be both helpful and troubling. Summaries are useful at times. They can give a quick foundation in some basics. They can also pique interest in further study. They can attract people who'd be intimidated to look at a longer catechism.
> 
> But summaries also might appeal to the impatient, no-time-for-deeper-study mindset of the current Western church. People could start to figure that as long as they've gone over a very brief catechism such as this, they're okay. There's no reason to invest any time into studying the older, longer ones. And that would be a shame.



Useful and insightful comments.


----------



## jandrusk

Just started reading through it and already I am highly suspicious (Did I mention I get paid to be extremely paranoid?). First red flag is that there are no scripture proofs. Second, in question 4 (Which is actually two questions - did anyone proofread this document?) it mentioneds nothing in regards to God creating the world in six days. Is this, because they do not want to offend the Theistic Evolutionists? Then I don't understand why they needed to make it fit one question/answer for each week of the year?


----------



## Tim

jandrusk said:


> it mentioneds nothing in regards to God creating the world in six days. Is this, because they do not want to offend the Theistic Evolutionists?



It was co-authored by Tim Keller.


----------



## Dearly Bought

A few random things I noticed:

Portions drawn from the Shorter Catechism substituted gender-neutral terms for man. Only one question featured the word , in the phrase "God became man."
The language concerning the sacraments seems to move in a Baptistic direction by speaking of them first as signs and seals of Christian community rather than Christ and his benefits.
A covenantal view of household baptism is completely missing.
The Decalogue is drawn from the NIV.
The language on the 2nd Commandment avoids committing to the Regulative Principle.
The language on the 5th Commandment fails to recognize that this commandment applies to many relationships of authority, not just familial.


----------



## PaulCLawton

I think the main question here is, "Why would a non-ecclesiastical body take the work of the church upon itself?"


----------



## Scott1

Covenant Joel said:


> This new effort seems to have a different purpose than the original WSC


One wonders what the purpose might be, to market a "catechism" that selectively takes parts of historic catechisms, randomly assign them different versions, include and exclude certain doctrines. Market them with the name of one church or one man.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

There are a ton of problems with the theology of this catechism from a Presbyterian point of view. There is nothing wrong with the Shorter Catechism, no good reason other than just pure laziness and chronological arrogance to reinvent the wheel. The WSC was written for ignorant kids and illiterate men in the 17th Century. We in our enlightened age should be able to handle it without trouble.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

One thing I just noticed. This catechism cuts off the ending of the Lord's Prayer.


----------



## Romans922

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> One thing I just noticed. This catechism cuts off the ending of the Lord's Prayer.



So like the Roman Catholics version?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

No, like the Biblical version that the Westminster Catechisms use.


----------



## Romans922

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> No, like the Biblical version that the Westminster Catechisms use.



I meant the new catechism is like the Papist version.... Isn't that what you're suggesting, in part?


----------



## toddpedlar

Seems to me this is just another watered down document meant to appeal to a very wide array of doctrinal perspectives and to avoid any prickly parts that might cause someone to get their panties in a wad. I am not at all surprised at the deletions or the avoided subjects, given the authors. I am also thoroughly unimpressed with the need for this. We have already got a shorter, easier, yet faithful catechism in what goes by the name "Catechism for Young Children", if the WSCis deemed too difficult.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Romans922 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, like the Biblical version that the Westminster Catechisms use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I meant the new catechism is like the Papist version.... Isn't that what you're suggesting, in part?
Click to expand...


Ok. Gotcha, my fault for misreading you. I was referring more to the Critical Text's deletion of that part of the Lord's Prayer over and against what the Catechism uses.


----------



## Zach

I'm mostly with Todd on this. I think the reasoning behind it is to essentially say, "Let's write something that we can all get on board with and major in the majors and forget about minoring in the minors." I'm all for majoring in the majors and serving alongside those with whom we have serious doctrinal differences but who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and desire to see his gospel spread to all nations. But there isn't a need for a catechism that wipes out the minors and dismisses them as unimportant. As someone who worships with a broad, evangelical campus ministry it is refreshing to be open about where I differ doctrinally with others. Our new campus Pastor is not a Calvinist and he and I don't pretend we don't disagree on some doctrine but it doesn't result in a breakdown of a friendship in service of Christ. The approach I see in this catechism is problematic because it makes it out that if we just wouldn't minor in the minors and weren't committed in our Standards to explaining the reasons for doctrinal distinctions that everything would be fine and we would be much more unified and effective for the Kingdom. I believe the opposite is true. Only when we clearly explain where and why we minor in the minors will we ever be able to come together effectively to serve the Lord Jesus.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> There are a ton of problems with the theology of this catechism from a Presbyterian point of view. There is nothing wrong with the Shorter Catechism, no good reason other than just pure laziness and chronological arrogance to reinvent the wheel. The WSC was written for ignorant kids and illiterate men in the 17th Century. We in our enlightened age should be able to handle it without trouble.



This would be my nomination for "Post of the Week."


----------



## toddpedlar

What's with the "made possible" language used in Q/A 32? This sounds very much like an appeal to evanjellyfish teaching that nothing is actually secured by Christ, but only "made possible".


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The WSC was written for ignorant kids and illiterate men in the 17th Century. We in our enlightened age should be able to handle it without trouble.



I'll just comment here that I know many for whom even this very brief summary would be over their head theologically. To combat this would take a very high level of one-on-one discipleship and training in Christianity.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> There is nothing wrong with the Shorter Catechism, no good reason other than just pure laziness and chronological arrogance to reinvent the wheel.



You seem here to be conflating two issues: 1) that there is nothing wrong with the WSC 2) that there is no need for a new catechism. If this had been the position of the Westminster Divines, might they have been better off just translating the Heidelberg Catechism? Simply because one has no problem or sees nothing wrong with an earlier catechism or confession does not entail that the composition of a new one constitutes arrogance. Were the compilers of the Athanasian Creed arrogant and ignoring the fact that the Nicene Creed was more than adequate?



Jack K said:


> I wouldn't automatically reject this catechism, but I'd probably try to steer most students toward something that went into more detail and had more depth.



I tend to agree with you. That said, there are a number of audiences who would find this catechism much more accessible and understandable than the older forms, at least at first.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Miss Marple said:


> From a quick layman's impression, I miss the word "covenant" in 43, 44, 46. It is been most helpful for me to know that baptism and the Lord's Supper are seals of the covenant.


Well observed. I can't agree more.


----------



## thbslawson

Tim said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> it mentioneds nothing in regards to God creating the world in six days. Is this, because they do not want to offend the Theistic Evolutionists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was co-authored by Tim Keller.
Click to expand...


To be fair, not being a six-day literalist does not automatically make one a theistic evolutionist. Your statement may seem to imply that.


----------



## Tim

thbslawson said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> it mentioneds nothing in regards to God creating the world in six days. Is this, because they do not want to offend the Theistic Evolutionists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was co-authored by Tim Keller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, not being a six-day literalist does not automatically make one a theistic evolutionist. Your statement may seem to imply that.
Click to expand...


My statement does not imply that. It simply provides a possible reason why the catechism does not mention six days of creation: Tim Keller does not believe in six literal days.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## toddpedlar

thbslawson said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> it mentioneds nothing in regards to God creating the world in six days. Is this, because they do not want to offend the Theistic Evolutionists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was co-authored by Tim Keller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, not being a six-day literalist does not automatically make one a theistic evolutionist. Your statement may seem to imply that.
Click to expand...


I don't think he was implying that Keller is a theistic evolutionist (though I think, actually, that he is). All he was pointing out is that the lack of any semblance of 'creation in six days' is completely expected because Keller, regardless of his personal convictions on the issue, has made it very clear that he believes theistic evolution ought to be accomodated within the sphere of acceptable Reformed teaching by his warm embrace of BioLogos et al


----------



## thbslawson

Tim said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> it mentioneds nothing in regards to God creating the world in six days. Is this, because they do not want to offend the Theistic Evolutionists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was co-authored by Tim Keller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, not being a six-day literalist does not automatically make one a theistic evolutionist. Your statement may seem to imply that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My statement does not imply that. It simply provides a possible reason why the catechism does not mention six days of creation: Tim Keller does not believe in six literal days.
Click to expand...


Not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative, but as I read it it DOES imply that. You make no reference to the other positions out there that are not six-day, such as framework or day-age, that are far less extreme than theistic evolution. Why would you automatically assume the omission of "six-days" is so as not to offend theistic evolutionists rather than to take into account these other more orthodox positions?


----------



## toddpedlar

thbslawson said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> it mentioneds nothing in regards to God creating the world in six days. Is this, because they do not want to offend the Theistic Evolutionists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was co-authored by Tim Keller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, not being a six-day literalist does not automatically make one a theistic evolutionist. Your statement may seem to imply that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My statement does not imply that. It simply provides a possible reason why the catechism does not mention six days of creation: Tim Keller does not believe in six literal days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative, but as I read it it DOES imply that. You make no reference to the other positions out there that are not six-day, such as framework or day-age, that are far less extreme than theistic evolution. Why would you automatically assume the omission of "six-days" is so as not to offend theistic evolutionists rather than to take into account these other more orthodox positions?
Click to expand...


All that his statement implies (unless of course you are looking with predisposed suspicion at his words) is that Keller, being one of the co-authors, would wish not to offend theistic evolutionists, and so the lack of six-day mention in the catechism makes sense. It cannot be denied that Keller has made significant overtures to the theistic evolutionist movement through his involvement with and support of BioLogos. It is also likely that Keller et al didn't want to offend other non-six-day groups, but it is hard to imagine that inclusion of theistic evolutionists was not also in view (unless you refuse to be objective about where Keller stands in relation to inclusion of those perspectives).


----------



## Tim

thbslawson said:


> Not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative, but as I read it it DOES imply that. You make no reference to the other positions out there that are not six-day, such as framework or day-age, that are far less extreme than theistic evolution. Why would you automatically assume the omission of "six-days" is so as not to offend theistic evolutionists rather than to take into account these other more orthodox positions?



I already clarified the intent of what I wrote. You are attributing things to me that I never said.


----------



## bookslover

R. Scott Clark has a generally positive review up at the Heidelblog: Heidelblog | Recovering the Reformed Confession.


----------



## Jack K

bookslover said:


> R. Scott Clark has a generally positive review up at the Heidelblog: Heidelblog | Recovering the Reformed Confession.



I liked what he had to say, especially how he focused on what was right before picking at what he found lacking.

I have to say that the more I look through the catechism, the more I like it:

- The interactive setup is a very nice touch and includes both Scripture references and commentary/prayers from largely Puritan-era writers. That can't help but expose people to guys whose works they ought to be reading.

- The shorter length is good for many situations.

- It's easy for parents and young children to work through together, since the child version is simply a smaller portion of each answer that can be expanded as kids grow older. Brilliant! It encourages whole-family joint learning in a way the WSC and Children's Catechism, good as they are, don't.

- It accomodates both Presbyterians and Baptists. The areas of accomodation are clearly a major weakness as well, and a reason many churches and families will want something that speaks more substantively to certain points. But I'm also well aware of settings where a measure of accomodation is helpful. For instance, I might actually be able to get my Baptist church to use this catechism (it's far more meaty than our brief faith statement) and I could in good conscience teach and affirm all of it. In a situation like mine, that's valuable.

So rather than focusing on what's missing that I might like to see (as with everyone here, there are several things), I'm starting to appreciate the potentials.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## thbslawson

Tim said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative, but as I read it it DOES imply that. You make no reference to the other positions out there that are not six-day, such as framework or day-age, that are far less extreme than theistic evolution. Why would you automatically assume the omission of "six-days" is so as not to offend theistic evolutionists rather than to take into account these other more orthodox positions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already clarified the intent of what I wrote. You are attributing things to me that I never said.
Click to expand...


Tim, my post was referring to what jandrusk originally posted, not your comment of "It was co-authored by Tim Keller."


----------



## Tim

thbslawson said:


> Tim, my post was referring to what jandrusk originally posted, not your comment of "It was co-authored by Tim Keller."



Thanks for clarifying. It's all good.


----------



## jogri17

I personally wouldn't use it. I am content with the Westminster Standards and the Heidleberg Catechism, but I'd buy a copy and look at it as a reference and maybe quote it and read it in devotions. Catechisms have also historically not just functioned as an educational tool, but as a way of governing doctrine within the Church and this catechism doesn't seem to do that well enough, but I applaud the effort and the desire all the same. No need to endorse it nor bash it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Joseph G. 
Québec, QC


----------



## Kevin

It aught to be pointed out (so I will  ) that in "the good 'ol days" there were many catechisms being written. I have used John Brown's and know of a half dozen more written by individual ministers at that time that are all slightly different in emphasis, but clearly derived from his. If I remember correctly I believe that his grandson also publish a version under the same name.

At one time it seems that nearly every Presbyterian Minister wrote his own catechism. there used to be dozens of such variations on the WSC printed and in use. 

I don't know why they all felt that they needed their own version. Partly they earned money from books and a catechism would be a good seller and require little work. Partly they felt that some others in use were unbalanced. Partly they knew their own people and desired to speak to them in an understandable way. Perhaps a combination? 

The fact is we do not know for certain. But I do doubt that the suspicion and speculation that has been evidenced in some parts of this thread would include John Brown or the Erskines efforts to write a "new" catechism.


----------



## Scott1

Kevin said:


> It aught to be pointed out (so I will  ) that in "the good 'ol days" there were many catechisms being written. I have used John Brown's and know of a half dozen more written by individual ministers at that time that are all slightly different in emphasis, but clearly derived from his. If I remember correctly I believe that his grandson also publish a version under the same name.
> 
> At one time it seems that nearly every Presbyterian Minister wrote his own catechism. there used to be dozens of such variations on the WSC printed and in use.
> 
> I don't know why they all felt that they needed their own version. Partly they earned money from books and a catechism would be a good seller and require little work. Partly they felt that some others in use were unbalanced. Partly they knew their own people and desired to speak to them in an understandable way. Perhaps a combination?
> 
> The fact is we do not know for certain. But I do doubt that the suspicion and speculation that has been evidenced in some parts of this thread would include John Brown or the Erskines efforts to write a "new" catechism.



One thing to consider here.

In the PCA, the Westminster Standards, which include the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, are part of the constitution of the church. They can be amended, with a high level of careful consideration, deliberation and agreement. After all, they have stood almost entirely for 400 years.

So for someone to come along with a quickie substitute named after themselves or their church seems to contradict the seriousness of the doctrine undertaken and confessed.

Granted, they will largely argue their "new" catechism is not a substitute, yet the market is for that as a replacement-
are we really to believe the marketing purpose is to get everyone to fully learn and use the constitutional standards and then, after, use this as a supplemental tool?

Is the esteemed Senior Pastor and teaching elder ensuring that the children in his covenant community are learning the Westminster Shorter Catechism (as well as members and officers)? Is that being done already?

Is the effect to water down the role of the Confessional standards, or just ignore them, or maybe is there a profit motive? We have to be honest in asking these questions when this is marketed within a confessional church.

Really, why is this mostly copied version of questions without the extensive Scripture proofs of each statement and/or proposition of doctrine being marketed as a "catechism" to a church that knows what a catechism is?


----------



## Scott1

How about the church and the esteemed Pastor just announcing their support and effort behind a fresh effort to get the people to learn the Westminster Shorter Catechism? After all it was written so even children who applied themselves to learning the great doctrines of the reformed faith could do so.


----------



## Romans922

All I have to say is that where in the 1600's Independents, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Erastians came up with the WSC and we compare that to today and the New City Catechism which seems to be heralded by many makeups that we find at The Gospel Coalition. So similar in makeups/denominations (if you will), but the quality shows where we are as a Church in America (at least). We have gone so far down in our standards, quality of thought, writing ability, etc. that what we need is much prayer and continual study of the Word of God. 

Putting the WSC next to the NCC, one should begin to weep over the latter which is an expression of the Church today.


----------



## MW

The sanctified genius of the Shorter Catechism is not to be found in this Catechism. As reformed Christians we agree with older assessments that the Westminster formularies attained a new height when they commenced with Scripture. One obvious flaw in the new catechism is the failure to articulate the goal of human life in close connection with the rule for obtaining that goal. One would be right to inquire from where the answers of the Catechism are derived. Further, the balanced structure of what we are to believe concerning God followed by the duty God requires of man has been removed. The biblical pattern of faith and duty, which has been shown to be a great quality in the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, should not be lightly laid aside. Again, a clear articulation of the principles of conduct required by each commandment has been abandoned in favour of concentrating on the law merely as a school-master to lead us to Christ. It is not difficult to see an Antinomian strain at work in this scheme. Finally, what has become of the wonderful truths so concisely and clearly taught by the Shorter Catechism? Some of them have gone missing! Others are so obscured by modern sentimentalism that they are barely recognisable. Where are the doctrines of grace? Where is the covenant structure? The Shorter Catechism teaches concerning the redemptive work of Christ within the context of the covenant of grace and thereby guarantees and guards its particularity. This Catechism has God reconciling "us" and Christ dying for "us" without any indication as to whom that may refer.


----------



## Kevin

Scott, if the authors of the NC Catechism claimed to be replacing our standards, I would agree with you.

However, since they are not claiming this, let us treat them with the deference that we grant dead authors of catechisms,


----------



## Scott1

Kevin said:


> Scott, if the authors of the NC Catechism claimed to be replacing our standards, I would agree with you.
> 
> However, since they are not claiming this, let us treat them with the deference that we grant dead authors of catechisms,



That is the response my post anticipated.

But the question remains unanswered. Honestly.

Is the church and the esteemed Senior Pastor, respectively, each fully teaching their covenant communities the Westminster Standards?

Is this truly a supplement, or is it de facto a replacement? (and a selective, plagiarized one at that) 

And what theological scrutiny has it been subject to? It's obvious it leaves out key doctrine that place the doctrine it contains, selectively, in context.

After all both are in a confessional church, and the people know what we mean by "catechism."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tim

Scott1 said:


> Is this truly a supplement, or is it de facto a replacement? (and a selective, plagiarized one at that)



Exactly. How can this be a supplement when it contains less information and is less precise? That's not a supplement. Supplements add, not take away.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

If the entire challenge of the church today is seen as one that boils down to "we must protect our Standards!"... well, then this catechism will surely be viewed with nothing but animosity.

But it we have eyes to see that, important as protecting our Standards may be, there are other challenges as well that face churches different from our own... an ongoing explosion in missions, the need to speak the gospel to an entertainment-driven culture, an evangelical sub-culture that's suspicious of any catechism to start with, a larger culture that's suspicious of any doctrine to start with, families so consumed by after-school and after-work activities that they can't even imagine making time for devotions together... well, then we seek any tool that might break through and start to address some of these challenges.

A catechism that helps missionaries, parents and frustrated pastors get folks to take some step—admittedly a beginner step—in a good direction... well, that has value. Again, if every development is seen through the "our Standards are being eroded!" alarm bells, such a tool will be summarily condemned. But then some churches and hunrgy disciples, facing challenges different from our own, will be missing out on a tool that could help.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach

My hope for this is that it will also cause people to not only look at a Catechism for the first time, as you describe, Jack, but will also then lead people to look at the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms for the first time. I did not grow up with Reformed Theology, but was introduced to the TGC and eventually was exposed to the Reformed Confessions. Hopefully, this "New City Catechism" will point people toward the already existing catechisms.


----------



## Tim

Jack K said:


> well, then we seek any tool that might break through and start to address some of these challenges.





Zach said:


> Hopefully, this "New City Catechism" will point people toward the already existing catechisms.



What exactly do we think the NCC will accomplish that a historic catechism cannot?

While I appreciate the thoughtful comments in this thread, it seems as if there is the suggestion that the New City Catechism will somehow be more palatable or accessible where other historic catechisms are not. How exactly does this follow? What sort of person would be unwilling to consider WSC but would be willing at the same time to consider NCC? I just don't understand that.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Tim said:


> What exactly do we think the NCC will accomplish that a historic catechism cannot?
> 
> While I appreciate the thoughtful comments in this thread, it seems as if there is the suggestion that the New City Catechism will somehow be more palatable or accessible where other historic catechisms are not. How exactly does this follow? What sort of person would be unwilling to consider WSC but would be willing at the same time to consider NCC? I just don't understand that.



You may not understand that mindset, but you already love the historic catechisms and confessions. For those that don't, this might interest them in the whole idea of catechesis.

Additionally, the older language of the WSC (hath, thou, etc) is a turn off for many people. I understand that it's not a hard adjustment (when I memorized the WSC the second, I just changed hath to has, etc, and it was perfectly easy), but for many people unaccustomed to catechisms, that's a problem.


----------



## Zach

Tim said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, then we seek any tool that might break through and start to address some of these challenges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, this "New City Catechism" will point people toward the already existing catechisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly do we think the NCC will accomplish that a historic catechism cannot?
> 
> While I appreciate the thoughtful comments in this thread, it seems as if there is the suggestion that the New City Catechism will somehow be more palatable or accessible where other historic catechisms are not. How exactly does this follow? What sort of person would be unwilling to consider WSC but would be willing at the same time to consider NCC? I just don't understand that.
Click to expand...


Tim, if you would have asked me in my early "Reforming" days what the Westminster Shorter Catechism was I would have said, "What?" I did not know they existed. But I was reading things written by guys like Piper, Keller, etc. Had I stumbled on the NCC I likely would have read it and possibly been exposed to the existence of the WSC. Most evangelicals have no idea that there are Reformed Confessions.


----------



## Tim

Zach said:


> Most evangelicals have no idea that there are Reformed Confessions.



Sure. But if you have a new believer you don't need to go into church history. Just present them with a bit of content from NCC:



> Q 1 What is our only hope in life and death?
> That we are not our own but belong, body and soul, both in life and death, to
> God and to our Savior Jesus Christ.
> 
> Q 2 What is God?
> God is the creator and sustainer of everyone and everything. He is eternal,
> infinite, and unchangeable in his power and perfection, goodness and glory,
> wisdom, justice, and truth. Nothing happens except through him and by his will.



and then, noting for yourself similar items from historical catechisms:



> Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
> 
> Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.
> 
> WSC Q. 4. What is God?
> A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.



Why would you think that someone who truly wants to learn about the faith would reject one and not the other?


----------



## Tim

Covenant Joel said:


> You may not understand that mindset, but you already love the historic catechisms and confessions.



My "first catechism" was Westminster - at the age of 29 or so. I had never been exposed anything of the like before, nor did I grow up reading the KJV. I was interested in the Lord and wanted to learn. It didn't matter when it was written.

So, my question is, how many church pastors withheld this sort of thing from me in the churches I previously attended because they assumed that it wouldn't be palatable to my modern ears? There is a constant murmur that I have heard over the years that assumes people are either unwilling or unable to digest the riches of reformed theology. I am just thankful that there are still churches that take in people who are new to the reformed faith, and six months later those folks are catechizing their children and reading Calvin's Institutes.


----------



## Zach

Tim said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most evangelicals have no idea that there are Reformed Confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. But if you have a new believer you don't need to go into church history. Just present them with a bit of content from NCC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q 1 What is our only hope in life and death?
> That we are not our own but belong, body and soul, both in life and death, to
> God and to our Savior Jesus Christ.
> 
> Q 2 What is God?
> God is the creator and sustainer of everyone and everything. He is eternal,
> infinite, and unchangeable in his power and perfection, goodness and glory,
> wisdom, justice, and truth. Nothing happens except through him and by his will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then, noting for yourself similar items from historical catechisms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?
> 
> Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.
> 
> WSC Q. 4. What is God?
> A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you think that someone who truly wants to learn about the faith would reject one and not the other?
Click to expand...


I don't think one would reject the WSC or HC and embrace the NCC. I think the NCC will likely be able to direct people to the Reformed Catechisms who wouldn't have otherwise known they existed. If it serves to point people to the historic creeds and confessions of the Church and provide the helpful type of "summary" that Jack described earlier in this thread then I think it could be a very good thing. It's not without drawbacks (and some big ones at that) but I don't think it is a bad for the Church as a whole if it exposes people more to the Reformed Confessions. 

If, however, it becomes a sort of "governing document" for the new Evangelical Reformed world where distinctions on policy, baptism, dispensationalism, etc. don't matter and need to be swept under the rug as we all embrace a "gospel centered" movement connected to no larger Ecclesiastical body then I would take issue with it.


----------



## Romans922

Zach said:


> I don't think one would reject the WSC or HC and embrace the NCC. I think the NCC will likely be able to direct people to the Reformed Catechisms who wouldn't have otherwise known they existed.



If they didn't know Reformed Catechisms existed, then give them WSC or HC. 

NOTE: NCC is not a reformed catechism.


----------



## Tim

Zach said:


> I think the NCC will likely be able to direct people to the Reformed Catechisms who wouldn't have otherwise known they existed.



Why not just take them directly there? What is this need for an "intermediary catechism"? Why would you need one catechism to expose people to other catechism(s)? 

I think Mr. Barnes is right on:



Romans922 said:


> If they didn't know Reformed Catechisms existed, then give them WSC or HC.



Why can't it be that simple?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zach

Tim said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the NCC will likely be able to direct people to the Reformed Catechisms who wouldn't have otherwise known they existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just take them directly there? What is this need for an "intermediary catechism"? Why would you need one catechism to expose people to other catechism(s)?
> 
> I think Mr. Barnes is right on:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't know Reformed Catechisms existed, then give them WSC or HC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't it be that simple?
Click to expand...


You and I would give someone a copy of the WSC or HC but I think you are overlooking the amount of Christians that simply read TGC Blog or like listening to Keller and Piper sermons who could see this NCC and be exposed to the Reformed Confessions when otherwise they wouldn't. I think you are overestimating the amount of exposure to the WSC non-Reformed Christians get.


----------



## Romans922

Zach said:


> I think you are overlooking the amount of Christians that simply read TGC Blog or like listening to Keller and Piper sermons who could see this NCC and be exposed to the Reformed Confessions when otherwise they wouldn't.



Again, NCC and TGC is not reformed.


----------



## Zach

Romans922 said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are overlooking the amount of Christians that simply read TGC Blog or like listening to Keller and Piper sermons who could see this NCC and be exposed to the Reformed Confessions when otherwise they wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, NCC and TGC is not reformed.
Click to expand...


I agree, but the NCC drawing from WSC and the HC can point them to the Reformed Confessions themselves. Sorry if I made it sound as though I thought the NCC was Reformed.


----------



## Jack K

Tim said:


> What exactly do we think the NCC will accomplish that a historic catechism cannot?



The things I mentioned earlier, like...

1. You're a mom or dad wanting to learn the catechism along with your 5-year-old. The kid can't handle as much material as you can, but you'd like to be learning the same words he is, just in an expanded version.

2. You're intimidated by the length of some of the other catechisms and are more likely to give one a try if it seems less ominous.

3. You want to study alongside your Baptist friends. Not that the differences you have don't matter, but you have a need at this time to focus on those things you can agree on.

4. You come from a church tradition that makes you distrustful of any "catechism," and need a gentler introduction to the concept or you'll be likely to just reject it entirely. You need to start with something sensitive to the spiritual baggage you carry.

5. You don't like books, but an interactive iPhone app is right up your alley.

Now, some of these situations are not what we hope for people. But they do reflect what pastors see when they sit down with congregants and try to put useful tools in their hands. To have this as an available option for some people in some situations could be useful in the nitty gritty work of pastoring, where you seldom have an ideal disciple to guide.

We could also make a long list (a longer one, I think) of the types of people who'd be better helped by one of the older catechisms. And among those people, I'm already inclined to suggest the Westminster for some and the Heidelberg for others, depending on the person and why they want to study. It's _good_ that those two resources appeal in different ways. This catechism looks to me like it might be useful to still other people in their unique situations. Pastoring is personal. Teaching resources simply shouldn't be one-size-fits-all.

As doctrinal standards, I would not suggest replacing the older catechisms with this new one. But as a teaching tool (which the catechisms should also be), I can see situations where it might be more useful. It's sad, but out in the real world many, many believers get almost no systematic teaching for a number of reasons. If this can be a start in addressing some of those issues, I want it in my arsenal.


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> A catechism that helps missionaries, parents and frustrated pastors get folks to take some step—admittedly a beginner step—in a good direction... well, that has value.



The difficulty is, the Westminster Shorter Catechism was written for children.




Jack K said:


> 1. You're a mom or dad wanting to learn the catechism along with your 5-year-old. The kid can't handle as much material as you can, but you'd like to be learning the same words he is, just in an expanded version.
> 
> 2. You're intimidated by the length of some of the other catechisms and are more likely to give one a try if it seems less ominous.



Granted, we don't seem to expect much of children in terms of Bible learning or memorization in this generation, but that's why the WSC was written, to be shorter, to get started.

And it got the context of Scripture right in beginning with man's chief end. The new marketed version does not but seems to pick out doctrines at random. Not sure what the one Pastor or one church marketing had in mind, how they developed it, etc. Was it a theological basis, or a marketing one.

It's a question we have to ask when a reformed public figure or reformed church markets such and uses a reformed "term of art." (catechism).

As an aside, I'm amazed how very young children can learn the intricate words of a pop culture song on the radio or internet (or their ipod), commit them to memory, recite it with the tune etc.


----------



## Scott1

Covenant Joel said:


> Additionally, the older language of the WSC (hath, thou, etc) is a turn off for many people.



And let's be honest, the Word of God is a turn off for many people, regardless of version. And the discipline of learning in itself. Sometimes for both adults and children. 

(That's why we came up with "new" math for school. Or the "look see" method for reading. But it didn't teach people math, or to read and quickly faded away. A generation later, even fewer are committing to match disciplines, reading skills, etc., at least in the U.S. where these introductory methods were first marketed).


----------



## Covenant Joel

Scott1 said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, the older language of the WSC (hath, thou, etc) is a turn off for many people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's be honest, the Word of God is a turn off for many people, regardless of version. And the discipline of learning in itself. Sometimes for both adults and children.
> 
> (That's why we came up with "new" math for school. Or the "look see" method for reading. But it didn't teach people math, or to read and quickly faded away. A generation later, even fewer are committing to match disciplines, reading skills, etc., at least in the U.S. where these introductory methods were first marketed).
Click to expand...


This is a supreme difference in these things. Older language is not required of us (we could even go beyond that, but that's not the point of this discussion).

Reading Scripture is required of us. It that offends, so be it. If older language does, we ought to be willing to change that. God's word and the gospel ought to be the stumbling block, not something else.


----------



## Scott1

Covenant Joel said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, the older language of the WSC (hath, thou, etc) is a turn off for many people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's be honest, the Word of God is a turn off for many people, regardless of version. And the discipline of learning in itself. Sometimes for both adults and children.
> 
> (That's why we came up with "new" math for school. Or the "look see" method for reading. But it didn't teach people math, or to read and quickly faded away. A generation later, even fewer are committing to match disciplines, reading skills, etc., at least in the U.S. where these introductory methods were first marketed).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a supreme difference in these things. Older language is not required of us (we could even go beyond that, but that's not the point of this discussion).
> 
> Reading Scripture is required of us. It that offends, so be it. If older language does, we ought to be willing to change that. God's word and the gospel ought to be the stumbling block, not something else.
Click to expand...


Except that in the case of this "new" marketed catechism,
it's not a choice of having the WSC translating into, e.g. ESV language.

It's about a selected, apparently random and arbitrary collection of doctrines, copied from other sources by one Pastor or one church, 
being marketed to an audience that is assumed to know what catechism means.

One wonders whether the context or excluded doctrines are what the compilers thought to be off-putting. Or, was the motivation to update language only? Or just to simplify? We don't know.

Yes, e.g. King James does present something of a language challenge, one can benefit their command of language and literature by being exposed to it, but yes it does require some extra effort.

But so does learning the slang language of the pop culture songs, and their rhythms. Somehow, we see a lot of that being overcome, and a lot of time, energy and effort being directed toward learning those.

One also wonders how the fourth and fifth grade age children of the 1500's were able to learn the adult language of the catechisms. It must have seemed foreign to them.

Or how children of that same age will be doing the same this coming Lord's Day in the same denomination as the compilers of this "new" catechism. (This is required for communing membership in many PCA churches).

In fact, the Westminster Shorter Catechism was created for them.


----------



## Philip

Scott1 said:


> The difficulty is, the Westminster Shorter Catechism was written for children.



Yes, and today adults struggle with it. We may mourn the lack of erudition and theological understanding in today's youth, but I doubt that the solution is to ram something they don't understand down their throats.



Scott1 said:


> And it got the context of Scripture right in beginning with man's chief end. The new marketed version does not but seems to pick out doctrines at random.



Actually, I was able to pick out a logical flow. It's a different flow from that of the WSC, but it's a flow nontheless.

I'm in sympathy with your view, Jack, because that is the situation I too often find myself in and it's nice to find something written at the level of today's layman.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> Granted, we don't seem to expect much of children in terms of Bible learning or memorization in this generation, but that's why the WSC was written, to be shorter, to get started.



I understand the argument, and it has some merit. But would you say then that the Children's Catechism also is a bad tool and no Reformed person should ever recommend it? If so, I've been a very bad Reformed person because I've recommended it for many kids of certain ages and in certain families.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> And it got the context of Scripture right in beginning with man's chief end. The new marketed version does not but seems to pick out doctrines at random.



The new one starts by following the Heidelberg. It kind of sounds like you think the Heidelberg didn't get it "right" either. Is this true? I have to say I think the Heidelberg's more pastoral approach is very helpful for many people. The Westminster is excellent in terms of doctrinal breadth and precision. Doctrinal precision is a very good and necessary thing. But as good as it is, better doctrinal precision it is not the best answer to absolutely every need that walks into a pastor's office.


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Granted, we don't seem to expect much of children in terms of Bible learning or memorization in this generation, but that's why the WSC was written, to be shorter, to get started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the argument, and it has some merit. But would you say then that the Children's Catechism also is a bad tool and no Reformed person should ever recommend it? If so, I've been a very bad Reformed person because I've recommended it for many kids of certain ages and in certain families.
Click to expand...


Not if you mean the Children's Catechism, Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org, the 145 question introduction to the historic WSC.

Jack, forgot about that one. 
Why on earth would we need anything simpler than that?

(And it even teaches the sabbath; somehow I'm not seeing that teaching in the "new" catechism).


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> Doctrinal precision is a very good and necessary thing. But as good as it is, better doctrinal precision it is not the best answer to absolutely every need that walks into a pastor's office.



No, 
but it is essential to a confessional church.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrinal precision is a very good and necessary thing. But as good as it is, better doctrinal precision it is not the best answer to absolutely every need that walks into a pastor's office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,
> but it is essential to a confessional church.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. And as a confessional document we hold to it when we confess.

But it's also a teaching tool. And as a teaching tool we use not only it but also other teaching resources we find good and helpful. I'm only saying I find in this new catechism some potential to be helpful to some people. I didn't like it all that much myself when I first read through it. Only when I looked more closely at the method behind it did I start to see the value, expecially in situations other than ministering to tidy, well-steeped-the-Reformed-tradition settings. Like it or not, there are a lot of those untidy settings.


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrinal precision is a very good and necessary thing. But as good as it is, better doctrinal precision it is not the best answer to absolutely every need that walks into a pastor's office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,
> but it is essential to a confessional church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And as a confessional document we hold to it when we confess.
> 
> But it's also a teaching tool. And as a teaching tool we use not only it but also other teaching resources we find good and helpful. I'm only saying I find in this new catechism some potential to be helpful to some people. I didn't like it all that much myself when I first read through it. Only when I looked more closely at the method behind it did I start to see the value, expecially in situations other than ministering to tidy, well-steeped-the-Reformed-tradition settings. Like it or not, there are a lot of those untidy settings.
Click to expand...


Only one final word about the fine resource, the Children's Catechism, a longstanding tool that seems to meet the needs cited for any "new" catechism, brevity, language, simplicity, but still gives context-

it was and is an introduction specifically to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, one of the constitutional basis for several reformed communions.

This "new" one is not.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> Only one final word about the fine resource, the Children's Catechism, a longstanding tool that seems to meet the needs cited for any "new" catechism, brevity, language, simplicity, but still gives context-
> it was and is an introduction specifically to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, one of the constitutional basis for several reformed communions.
> This "new" one is not.



The Children's Catechism is a great resource, but it's for little kids and distinctly Presbyterian. I've used it (and the Heidelberg, and some of the WSC) with my own kids. But I can't really recommend the Children's Catechism to, say, the Baptist teenager down the street. However, he may put this new one on his phone and start learning it. That's not going to turn him into a Presbyterian, but it gives him an age-appropriate and attractive resource that beats the thin theological soup he's fed at "youth group."

I'm just saying there are people and situations for which it may be helpful.

True, we can be so eager to help people "where they're at" that we water down our theological distinctives to cater to them. That's bad. But we can also be so concerned to safeguard our theological distinctives that we fail to relate to anyone who isn't already a Reformed insider. That's bad, too. It's insular, protectionist thinking. I hope discussions like this one help us avoid both errors.


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> But we can also be so concerned to safeguard our theological distinctives that we fail to relate to anyone who isn't already a Reformed insider. That's bad, too.



We could have a separate thread on this topic, preserving a confession as part of the identity of a confessional denomination, how we relate to "outsiders," etc.
The alternative is diluting them with many alternatives, from many perspectives so nothing is really confessed inside or outside the church. It's not a "middle ground" discussion, its one of words having meaning, but that would be another thread.



> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I can't really recommend the Children's Catechism to, say, the Baptist teenager down the street. However, he may put this new one on his phone and start learning it. That's not going to turn him into a Presbyterian, but it gives him an age-appropriate and attractive resource
Click to expand...


The point of the Westminster Standards is not to try and unify Baptists as Presbyterians. It is to unite Presbyterians based on doctrine they have confessed for 400 years and confess what they believe summarizes the doctrine of holy Scripture. Likewise, the London Baptist Confession for Baptists.
You are confusing the purpose of Confessions.


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> I hope discussions like this one help us avoid both errors.


And I hope to discover the esteemed Pastor teaching and discipling by the Westminster Standards, within and without, as his oath requires,
and not marketing from within bits and pieces of copied alternatives.


----------



## Philip

Scott1 said:


> The point of the Westminster Standards is not to try and unify Baptists as Presbyterians. It is to unite Presbyterians based on doctrine they have confessed for 400 years and confess what they believe summarizes the doctrine of holy Scripture. Likewise, the London Baptist Confession for Baptists.
> You are confusing the purpose of Confessions.



Scott, I think Jack is speaking about a pastoral context, not a confessional one. He is recommending resources to help a young man's journey in faith while still respecting his Baptist convictions and reaching him at his level. As confessionalists, we still have to meet people where they are and communicate the Gospel in terms that they will understand, even as we make sure not to compromise its fundamental truths in the process.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> The point of the Westminster Standards is not to try and unify Baptists as Presbyterians. It is to unite Presbyterians based on doctrine they have confessed for 400 years and confess what they believe summarizes the doctrine of holy Scripture. Likewise, the London Baptist Confession for Baptists.
> You are confusing the purpose of Confessions.



I'm not talking about confessions at all! Who ever said they plan to use this new catechism as a confession in the church? No one yet that I've heard of. Absolutely no one. Certainly not me. This new catechism doesn't look to me at all sufficient for such a purpose.

But surely you know that a catechism doesn't have to be a confessional document. A few of the best ones are. But through the years there've also been many, many other catechisms that have served the purpose of instructing people in the faith without being a confessional document. Not every catechism needs to be viewed with suspicion as a threat to replace confessional standards. Some are just useful for teaching, nothing more.

So please try to hear me say "catechism" without turning it into "confession." Most catechisms have NOT become confessional documents.

If I pass a catechism along to a Baptist teen down the street, my goal in that is not to try to unify Baptists and Presbyterians under some new doctrinal standard. My goal is simply to put some decent teaching material in his hands that I can offer without creating a rift between myself and his parents. There's value in that sometimes. I'm not trying to carve out new confessional territory. I'm just trying to help a kid get some decent teaching that he can take home without some of the baggage that'd come if I gave him the WSC.


----------



## Jack K

Philip said:


> Scott, I think Jack is speaking about a pastoral context, not a confessional one. He is recommending resources to help a young man's journey in faith while still respecting his Baptist convictions and reaching him at his level. As confessionalists, we still have to meet people where they are and communicate the Gospel in terms that they will understand, even as we make sure not to compromise its fundamental truths in the process.



Thanks, Philip. Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You put it better than I have!


----------



## Christusregnat

This appears to be yet another harbinger for the destination of the PCA.


----------



## Christusregnat

Philip said:


> As confessionalists, we still have to meet people where they are and communicate the Gospel in terms that they will understand, even as we make sure not to compromise its fundamental truths in the process.



Like... say... Paul's use of Jesus and the Resurrection on Mars Hill?


----------



## kodos

This thread appears to be all over the place when it comes to defending this catechism. All of the problems mentioned can be solved in other ways. Archaic language? Create a version with new language like the MESV that the OPC put together. I've taught the Heidelberg via a modern language version as well. 

Okay. That's one objection that's really not relevant. 

Baptists uncomfortable with WSC or the Children's Catechism? I've seen modifications of both for our Baptist brothers. So what else?

Why would someone suspicious of a catechism suddenly think that this catechism is nothing to be suspicious of? It's still called a catechism . 

I'm going to be honest folks, I think this is a PCA problem. I've now witnessed a few churches in our Presbytery. I've seen elders(!) dismiss our standards as archaic and unimportant. They've allowed so many exceptions that the standards are not really seen as important. Many larger churches in our denomination don't teach them at all and our laypeople are unaware they exist. 

I look at the new PCA website and I see a Gospel Coalition'esque statement of faith under "What we believe". No link to our standards. I want to believe this is an oversight but given what I've seen of our denomination I'm not sure. 

I want our denomination to embrace our standards. I LOVE them. I want OTHERS to love them. If there are deficiencies in them I want to see those addressed by a body of elders in the GA. I want us to extol the genius of these documents. Not hide them like a crazy uncle . 

Our standards are being eroded in the PCA and I cannot help but think that this is part of the process that will undermine them more and more even if that was never the intent of the creators of this document.


----------



## Philip

Christusregnat said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> As confessionalists, we still have to meet people where they are and communicate the Gospel in terms that they will understand, even as we make sure not to compromise its fundamental truths in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like... say... Paul's use of Jesus and the Resurrection on Mars Hill?
Click to expand...


Oh I think they understood perfectly---hence the reaction.

To a certain degree, the Westminster Catechisms are like dictionaries of the reformed faith. They are things that we are supposed to internalize the way one would internalize a new language. The trouble is that they were written to a more theologically literate people in a more theologically literate time. The troubles of that time often sprang from people who were literate enough to run amok with obscure passages or who took the figurative as literal (men like Gerrard Winstanley come to mind). Today we have the problem of theological illiteracy such that the vocabulary of Westminster is a foreign language.

To a certain degree this reminds me of something I did in high school. I had the chance, one summer, to do a "Latin-in-a-week" program, where I spent one week with a tutor and a couple of other students blazing our way through Wheelock's Latin. Was this an adequate substitute for the full two-semester course I took in college? No---but it did give me enough of a background that I wasn't intimidated. I suspect that no one on this board is intimidated by archaic language or by erudition, but there are those who are. Is our solution really going to be "just study the WSC?" or might we be able to help them, using some resource with a lesser pedigree and simpler terms? When I first started studying the Reformed faith, I wasn't reading the _Institutes_ but R.C. Sproul and J.I. Packer---and I grew up in a confessional reformed church!

The other thing I should note is that if you are concerned about a slide away from confessionalism, then you should embrace anything (within reason) that can promote theological literacy among laypeople. The quickest way to liberalism is ignorant laypeople.


----------



## Covenant Joel

As I've been thinking about this discussion the last couple of days, something has occurred to me: if we really want people to know and use our confessional standards like the WSC, then perhaps we ought to be putting into a helpful format like the New City Catechism has done.

I.e., what if we created an online WSC tool like they've done with commentary, Scripture, video explanations from confessional pastors, and prayers to be used in family worship, even an iPad app? It's one thing to complain that the NCC isn't what we would hope for. But it also points us to how we can leverage new media tools to engage people in catechism study. 

We may or may not like the fact that iPad apps and online videos are more likely to engage church members than my little yellow-bound copy of the WSC, but that's where we are. So if we really want to see the WSC used, then how about an effort to do something similar to what the NCC has done with the WSC (updating hath to has, thou to you, etc, while we're at it)?


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> So please try to hear me say "catechism" without turning it into "confession."



Jack, the Confession of the Church is the Westminster Standards.

That includes the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

We do not mean only the Westminster Confession of Faith.

It includes the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechism.

In the PCA, all three are part of the constitution of the Church, which can only be changed in the same manner.
(It takes 3/4 majority vote of General Assembly, then majorities in 3/4 of Presbyteries, then ratification by a subsequent General Assembly by 3/4 vote).
The reason the bar is high is because they are all the Confessional basis of unity of the Church.

When this is being done by a prominent PCA leader, a prominent PCA church, they know what is being done.


----------



## Wayne

Rom

Not to take away from your concerns, but two points in refinement:

1. I'm fairly certain that the lack of catchesis in the Church isn't just a PCA problem. I'm open to correction here, but it is my understanding that the practice has fallen off the map in all the conservative denominations, except perhaps in a few of the micros, where there might be closer oversight.
2. Especially important in seeking a solution to the problem, you have to realize that this void is not a recent problem. Looking through old issues of the Christian Observer, starting back in the 1920's, they used to annually print lists of all the children throughout the South who had memorized one of the catechisms. At first you see those annual lists numbered easily a thousand or more. (each year there was usually one who had memorized the WLC.) Then, year by year the numbers began to decline. After a while, articles began to appear dealing with that problem. By WW2, the numbers were half what they used to be and maybe less. I think by the 1960's the Annual number was at best 100, out of denominations totaling well over one million members.

So what caused that loss of interest by the kids or loss of emphasis by pastors, elders, parents, etc? 

That seems like a key question to answer if you are going to get at the root of the problem. That, and how do you build catchesis into the normal life of a congregation? For these questions, Donald Van Dyken's book, Rediscovering Catechism : The Art of Equipping Covenant Children (Phllipsburg, NJ : P&R Publishing, 2000), should be helpful.

Trying to assign blame or point to the root of the problem is tricky and fraught with missteps.

Competing interests might be one aspect. The 1930s marked the rise of broadcast radio, professional sports, and the movie industry. Each of these had earlier origins but they really began to get established in those years. During the depression years , people looked for anything that would get their mind off their problems. Thus the rise of the entertainment industry.

World War 1 had a deleterious effect on the spirituality of returning troops, I think. That could also be part of the problem. So too the migration off the farm and into the city. Relatively few distractions on the farm; a world of distractions in the city.

The rise of fundamentalism and later, evangelicalism, seen as shifts away from confessionalism, per se, could be another part of the problem. But here, looking at 19th century Presbyterian newspapers, I don't see anything approaching a strong sense of confessionalism among the pastors and in the churches. There might even be more of that now than then! Instead, the emphasis or concerns that you see voiced in those papers centered on revival, temperance, foreign missions, and occasional controversies, ecclesiastical or moral. All of which to say, if we want to point at a shift away from confessionalism, that shift began well before the 20th century.

In sum, it's not just a PCA problem and we didn't get here overnight. And I don't really know how we came to this sad state, nor do I have an easy way out. 

Quite apart from any critique or analysis of this new catechism, it should be interesting to watch the implementation process. How successful will they be in NYC? The mobile device formatting is well done. Will the format then facilitate implementation? Lots of questions.


----------



## Scott1

Covenant Joel said:


> if we really want people to know and use our confessional standards like the WSC, then perhaps we ought to be putting into a helpful format like the New City Catechism has done.



But the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, for adults and children are already in helpful format.

That's what they have been for 400 years.

It takes some effort, like any discipline of the Christian life. 

That's what we need to ask God for.

I don't think the "new" format is helpful for many reasons- including it has not been developed with theological deliberation by the denomination it would market to, but rather only a marketing strategy. It's incomplete as a teaching tool, selective and arbitrary in what it teaches. We don't know why the basic questions of the Christian life in the WSC and WLC are left out. Not handy to learn them?

The premise that handier formats will stimulate more earnest application by God's people to the means of grace has two aspects. Yes, technologically, but there is real danger when we are talking about handy substance.

We now have an explosion of Bible translations being marketed almost every year. The people are not reading the same thing, and curiously, the number of people (at least here in North America) seriously studying the Word of God is declining. Despite all the new "contextualized" formats, "contemporary" translations, abbreviations, "paraphrases," and marketing.
We have Bibles for fishermen (only)?, for women (only)?, one for "positive thinkers" (only?)

This "new" catechism is a hodge podge,
and the practical effect is not to increase the confessional unity of the church.

Any more than the "Amplified Bible" increased unity over the great doctrinal truths of Christianity.


----------



## Scott1

Covenant Joel said:


> what if we created an online WSC tool like they've done with commentary, Scripture,



But this is not an WSC tool,
it's a random arbitrary collection from several sources done for marketing purposes, in a different version.

The Children's Catechism is a fine tool as an introduction to the WSC, which is its long standing purpose. It can even be used by more than the pre-fourth and fifth graders it was originally intended for.


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> So please try to hear me say "catechism" without turning it into "confession."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack, the Confession of the Church is the Westminster Standards.
> 
> That includes the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
> 
> We do not mean only the Westminster Confession of Faith.
> 
> It includes the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechism.
> 
> In the PCA, all three are part of the constitution of the Church, which can only be changed in the same manner.
> (It takes 3/4 majority vote of General Assembly, then majorities in 3/4 of Presbyteries, then ratification by a subsequent General Assembly by 3/4 vote).
> The reason the bar is high is because they are all the Confessional basis of unity of the Church.
> 
> When this is being done by a prominent PCA leader, a prominent PCA church, they know what is being done.
Click to expand...


Um... I know all that about the Westminster Catechisms, of course. I still don't see how it matters. The fact that those are confessional documents does not mean every catechism is an attempt to supplant confessional standards. I just don't understand where you get that idea.

If you're implying that this IS someone's intent within the PCA, I think you you should say so plainly, in the proper church courts, if you can provide evidence of such intent (or refrain from making such accusations if you have no evidence but merely have personal suspicions).

As for me, if I recommend this new catechism to the fictional Baptist kid down the street it certainly won't be with the intent of supplanting PCA standards. I'm not thinking about the implications the catechism *might* have for people elsewhere who *might* want to use it badly. I'm just thinking I want to help that kid by introducing him to catechal instruction. That's the sort of guy I am. That's what's top of mind to me.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Scott1 said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> if we really want people to know and use our confessional standards like the WSC, then perhaps we ought to be putting into a helpful format like the New City Catechism has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, for adults and children are already in helpful format.
> 
> That's what they have been for 400 years.
> 
> It takes some effort, like any discipline of the Christian life.
> 
> That's what we need to ask God for.
> 
> I don't think the "new" format is helpful for many reasons- including it has not been developed with theological deliberation by the denomination it would market to, but rather only a marketing strategy. It's incomplete as a teaching tool, selective and arbitrary in what it teaches. We don't know why the basic questions of the Christian life in the WSC and WLC are left out. Not handy to learn them?
> 
> The premise that handier formats will stimulate more earnest application by God's people to the means of grace has two aspects. Yes, technologically, but there is real danger when we are talking about handy substance.
> 
> We now have an explosion of Bible translations being marketed almost every year. The people are not reading the same thing, and curiously, the number of people (at least here in North America) seriously studying the Word of God is declining. Despite all the new "contextualized" formats, "contemporary" translations, abbreviations, "paraphrases," and marketing.
> We have Bibles for fishermen (only)?, for women (only)?, one for "positive thinkers" (only?)
> 
> This "new" catechism is a hodge podge,
> and the practical effect is not to increase the confessional unity of the church.
> 
> Any more than the "Amplified Bible" increased unity over the great doctrinal truths of Christianity.
Click to expand...


Brother, I think you missed my entire point. I'm not defending the NCC or suggesting any change to the content of the WSC. I'm simply talking about developing an online tool/iPad app that does for the WSC what the NCC does for itself. That is, while there are WSC apps, there are none that combine commentary, Scripture, video, and prayer to go along with the actual text of the WSC. That's what I am talking about.

To simply say that the WSC is in the same format it has been in for 400 years misses the point. Keep the content, just use another medium to convey it, and add other resources to go along with it to help people get into it.


----------



## Covenant Joel

Scott1 said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> 
> what if we created an online WSC tool like they've done with commentary, Scripture,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not an WSC tool,
> it's a random arbitrary collection from several sources done for marketing purposes, in a different version.
> 
> The Children's Catechism is a fine tool as an introduction to the WSC, which is its long standing purpose. It can even be used by more than the pre-fourth and fifth graders it was originally intended for.
Click to expand...


I can see how you misunderstood that portion, but I was not saying that they created a WSC tool, but rather that a WSC tool could be created with a similar format to that which they have created. I.e., we can utilize newer technology with our confessional standards.


----------



## Gavin

Hi all,
I put together a catechism some time ago (took me a while) and posted it as a blog harmonizing the Geneva, Westminster and Heidelberg, but got almost no reply or comment. It also sought a middle way between Baptist and Covenant Baptist. You can check it here. I had hoped for some criticism that the right path might be maintaned.
A Reformed Catechism - Blogs - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> I'm not talking about confessions at all! Who ever said they plan to use this new catechism as a confession in the church? No one yet that I've heard of.





Jack K said:


> Um... I know all that about the Westminster Catechisms, of course. I still don't see how it matters.



Glad to see you clarified your earlier post, acknowledging that the Confession of the church includes the Westminster Shorter Catechism (with Scripture proofs).

It makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## Scott1

Covenant Joel said:


> I'm not defending the NCC or suggesting any change to the content of the WSC. I'm simply talking about developing an online tool/iPad app that does for the WSC what the NCC does for itself.



And thanks for that clarification,
technology to get the WSC more available is not the same thing as changing its substance.


----------

