# Preaching in the Heidelberg Catechism



## dannyhyde (May 18, 2007)

Has anyone ever read or written anything on the doctrine and practice of preaching in the Westminster Standards?

I recently reflected on what the Heidelberg Catechism says about preaching, after preaching through it for the 3rd time. Here are some developing thoughts: http://dannyhyde.squarespace.com/jo...of-preaching-in-the-heidelberg-catechism.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 18, 2007)

This previous thread may be of interest. Many of the expositions of the Shorter Catechism that we have originated as sermons. 

My pastor is currently preaching through the entire Westminster Standards. 

BTW, I saw your earlier post about the B.B. Warfield quote, but I did not have success finding it; I see that you cited it in your article:



> As cited in Jan Karel van Baalen, The Heritage of the Fathers: A Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 25.



I have not read your article in full yet, but I look forward to reading it.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 18, 2007)

Rev. Hyde,

From your blog:



> In fact, the venerable B.B. Warfield once said of the Christian Reformed Church, “Two things keep the small Christian Reformed Church straight in the midst of a crooked ecclesiastical world, its Catechism preaching and its catechetical instruction of its youth.”39



Does this describe principally how the Christian Reformed Church went bad? Did it give up on systematic catechism preaching and instruction, or was it something else?


----------



## JTDyck (May 18, 2007)

dannyhyde; said:


> Has anyone ever read or written anything on the doctrine and practice of preaching in the Westminster Standards?
> 
> I recently reflected on what the Heidelberg Catechism says about preaching, after preaching through it for the 3rd time. Here are some developing thoughts: http://dannyhyde.squarespace.com/jo...of-preaching-in-the-heidelberg-catechism.html



Dear Rev. Hyde,

I don't think this is a common practice in Presbyterian churches, as such. Here in Edmonton, we have gone through the Shorter Catechism more as the basis for our Sunday School curriculum. Lots of resources at www.shortercatechism.com

I did use Dr. Boer's harmony / outline of the Westminster Standards divided into 52 Lord's Days as the basis of a Sunday evening series some years ago. I have a copy on our Westminster Shorter Catechism Project website: http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/harmonies/boer_wsc.html, which would certainly facilitate such an endeavour.

I just started a series on the Heidelberg Catechism last Sunday evening.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 18, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> Does this describe principally how the Christian Reformed Church went bad? Did it give up on systematic catechism preaching and instruction, or was it something else?



While I'm not an expert on CRC history, I did do some research on this while in seminary. It seems to me that the general doctrinal decline (recognizing that there may still be pockets of confessional faithfulness) of the CRC can be attributed to Calvin College and Seminary. I have a book, "A Handbook of CRC Issues, 1968-1978" and most of the "issues" originated in Grand Rapids. 

This also accounts for the caution or aversion that many United Reformed people have with respect to a federational seminary.


----------



## dannyhyde (May 18, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> Does this describe principally how the Christian Reformed Church went bad? Did it give up on systematic catechism preaching and instruction, or was it something else?



Tom, obviously Warfield was speaking of what many consider the high-point of the CRC in the late-19th and early-20th centuries.

In terms of catechesis, only only need compare what is produced now by the CRC as catechism materials for Sunday schools as compared to the stuff that was written before 1930, for example. In the "good 'ole days," ministers catechized all the kids in their parish and wrote their own curiculum. Now the CRC delegates that to committees.

In terms of catechetical preaching, it is no longer enforced. As I mentioned on the blog, at the Synod of Dort ministers were to be hauled before Classis and censured for dfailing to preach the Catechism. The nearest CRC to where I am is known for its evening "bonfire" services at local San Diego beaches.


----------



## dannyhyde (May 18, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> This also accounts for the caution or aversion that many United Reformed people have with respect to a federational seminary.



Hi Wes,

I have even less knowledge of the CRC than you, being a Gentile and all (an Irishman in a Dutch Reformed federation of churches). The issue with Calvin Sem, it seems to me, is that it has no accountability and oversight from real congregations. It seems that it is so far removed from the local parish that it does whatever it desires.

I would also add, the issue with men like myself (and I'll include Dr. Godfrey and Dr. Clark, presumptuously) is not about a federational seminary, but whether it is a divine requirement. It seems the CanRC committee, maybe in response to the URC committee's paper, has dug its heels in deeply saying it is a biblical principle.

At the end of the day, the reason why this is even an issue (here's a tangent...sorry moderators and readers) is that Synod 2001 of the URC erred in setting up church order, songbood, and theological education joint-committees with the CanRC immediately after we voted to move to phase 2 with the CanRC, when these are properly phase 3 committees. Personally, the issue is not the CanRC, although there are outstanding issues, but our own CERCU (of which I am now a member!).

Danny


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 18, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> I would also add, the issue with men like myself (and I'll include Dr. Godfrey and Dr. Clark, presumptuously) is not about a federational seminary, but whether it is a divine requirement. It seems the CanRC committee, maybe in response to the URC committee's paper, has dug its heels in deeply saying it is a biblical principle.



Clarion recently published an article (by a CanRC person) agreeing with your position and further exposing the weaknesses of the CanRC committee position. We'll have to see what our Synods do with the matter...


----------



## MW (May 18, 2007)

One might consult Thomas Watson's introductory message to his catechetical series of sermons in "Body of Divinity." I think it will be found in Presbyterian circles that catechising is seen as a help to the pulpit rather than the focus of pulpit ministration. There are occasional series of sermons which are topically arranged according to the order of the catechism, but even then the emphasis falls upon the particular doctrines taught by the Word of God rather than what the catechism itself teaches. The systematic exposition of the catechism has therefore been utilised more in relation to the home and the class than the pulpit.


----------



## 3John2 (May 18, 2007)

I don't know about the Westminster but I do know that Joel Beeke has been preaching a series on the Heidelberg. It's available on sermonaudio.com. 
Also they offer a course on such preaching at PRTS.


----------



## bookslover (May 18, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> One might consult Thomas Watson's introductory message to his catechetical series of sermons in "Body of Divinity." I think it will be found in Presbyterian circles that catechising is seen as a help to the pulpit rather than the focus of pulpit ministration. There are occasional series of sermons which are topically arranged according to the order of the catechism, but even then the emphasis falls upon the particular doctrines taught by the Word of God rather than what the catechism itself teaches. The systematic exposition of the catechism has therefore been utilised more in relation to the home and the class than the pulpit.



I believe that's the way it should be. Preaching must be from the Word of God, not the secondary doctrinal standards. The former is infallible and inerrant, in the originals; the latter aren't.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 19, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I believe that's the way it should be. Preaching must be from the Word of God, not the secondary doctrinal standards. The former is infallible and inerrant, in the originals; the latter aren't.



A number of years ago, Dr. N.H. Gootjes spoke at the International Conference of Reformed Churches on the topic of Catechism Preaching. His two-part paper on the subject can be found here. He deals with this objection against the practice. When I started seminary, I agreed with the sentiments expressed above. However, I came to see that this is a false dilemma. The confessions faithfully summarize the teaching of Scripture as a whole. So, when we preach the Catechism properly, we are using the whole Bible as our text. 

Perhaps part of the problem here is a misunderstanding about what Catechism preaching looks like. One does not exegete and then exposit the Catechism as such, but draws out the Scriptural truths that the Catechism summarizes and lays them out for the congregation. In that way preaching the Catechism is preaching the Word of God. 

If you'd like to see some samples of how I go about this in my own preaching, see here (scroll to the bottom).


----------



## dannyhyde (May 19, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I believe that's the way it should be. Preaching must be from the Word of God, not the secondary doctrinal standards. The former is infallible and inerrant, in the originals; the latter aren't.



Richard,

I understand the concern, but this is a false quandry. No one says the Confessions are infallible and inerrant. Instead, we confess them because they are biblical. They have no authority of their own, but derive their authority from Scripture, the norma normata. This is a legitimate difference in our confessional traditions. We confess what we do because (quia) it agrees with the Word of God, while our Presbyterian brothers (at least American Presbyterians) do so in so far as (quatenus) it agrees with the Word of God.

What ends up happening, and I see this with seminary students as I am 20 minutes from Westminster and have my own interns, is that they devise a "topical" or "doctrinal" sermon that they have come up with and that is seen to be more biblical than deriving a sermon from the points given in a given catechism question and answer.

For example, Heidelberg 45 exposits the resurrection in three points:

_Q. What benefit do we receive from the “resurrection” of Christ?
A. First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, that He might make us partakers of the righteousness which He has obtained for us by His death. Second, by His power we are also now raised up to a new life. Third, the resurrection of Christ is to us a sure pledge of our blessed resurrection.
_

These three benefits come directly from Romans 4, 6, and 8. If a preacher simply used those three points and those three texts, would he not be preaching the Word of God? After all, the apostles themselves did not preach in Acts from one text, but explained the person and work of Christ in a thematic and topical way from the Old Testament. Just read Acts 2 and you'll see Joel 2 and Psalm 16 among others.


----------



## bookslover (May 19, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> We confess what we do because (quia) it agrees with the Word of God, while our Presbyterian brothers (at least American Presbyterians) do so in so far as (quatenus) it agrees with the Word of God.



Norma Normata? I think I went out with her in high school a couple of times.

Seriously, though: isn't the _quaternus_ position a safer place to be, in that it implies that secondary standards can, in principle, be corrected and improved? Doesn't your _quia_ position imply that secondary standards are _exactly the same_ as the Word of God, giving them at least an implied infallibility and inerrancy? I think that's a dangerous place to be.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 19, 2007)

In teaching the WSC in Sunday School, I was once informed that one of my lessons felt like a sermon. (This was prior to Seminary.)

My very first actual sermon was in relation to a catechism question, Q37 I think: "What benefits do believers receive from Christ at death?" I preached on the text: Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." I sought to incorporate the elements of the answer to the question


> The souls of believers are, at their death, made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection.


in the body of the sermon.


----------



## dannyhyde (May 19, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Norma Normata? I think I went out with her in high school a couple of times.
> 
> Seriously, though: isn't the _quaternus_ position a safer place to be, in that it implies that secondary standards can, in principle, be corrected and improved? Doesn't your _quia_ position imply that secondary standards are _exactly the same_ as the Word of God, giving them at least an implied infallibility and inerrancy? I think that's a dangerous place to be.



Richard,

Subscription to a particular confession from the heart and without reservation was the historic Reformed practice (e.g., the Anglicans with the 39 Articles, the Westminster Standards, and the Synod of Dort). In continental circles, this remains the practice in the continuing churches (e.g., URCNA, CanRC, PRC, FRC in the U.S. and Canada). This was the practice of the Presbyterians as well, until things got confused in the early-18th century in America.

As well, the reason for quia confessional subscription is that a confession is just that, a confession of what the churches believe. What is the point in saying, for example, the OPC subscribes the Standards, if all 300+ OPC's (organized and mission works) have a minister that takes even just 1 exception? You then have a group of churches giving lip service while in practice there are 300+ different confessions.

Finally, in historic Reformed churches, our principle of quia confessional subscription does not mean the confessions cannot be changed. With the Belgic Confession, for example, it underwent a series of edits/revisions from its writing in 1561 until the Synod of Dort established an authoritative text in 1619. Even after that, article 36 has undergone revision on the civil magistrate, while other groups have modified language such as Paul writing Hebrews.

Below is the text of the Form of Subscription adopted by the Synod of Dort, and still used in churches like the URCNA. You'll notice the quia language, as well as what a minister much do if his views change:

_We, the undersigned ministers of the divine Word under the jurisdiction of Classis, declare *sincerely and in good conscience* before God, by this our subscription, that we *from the heart think and believe* that all the articles and particular points of doctrine contained in this Confession and Catechism of the Dutch Reformed Church together with the declaration on some points of this doctrine made by the National Synod held at Dordrecht in 1619 *agree in everything with the Word of God*. We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend this very doctrine without publicly or privately, directly or indirectly teaching or writing anything against this doctrine. We also not only reject all errors contrary to this doctrine which are condemned by the Synod of Dort, but we also want to refute and oppose them and give every effort that they might be kept away from the Church. *And if at some later time it should happen that we foster any different consideration or sentiment *against this doctrine, we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately propose, teach, or defend such a view either in preaching or in writing, but *we will first reveal this view to the consistory, the classis and the synod so that it may be examined*. We are always ready to submit with a willing spirit to the judgment of the consistory, classis or synod, under penalty that if we act in a contrary way, we are by that very fact suspended from our offices. But if the consistory, classis or synod ever on serious reasons for suspicion, in order to preserve the unity and sincerity of doctrine, would wish to ask of us that we explain more fully our opinion about some article of this Confession, Catechism or Synodical declarations, we promise also always to be ready and willing to respond to such a request, under the same penalty stated above, reserving however to ourselves the right of appeal if we should believe that we have been grieved by the judgment of the consistory, classis or synod, during which appeal we will acquiesce in the judgment and determination of the provincial synod._


----------



## bookslover (May 21, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> _We, the undersigned ministers of the divine Word under the jurisdiction of Classis, declare *sincerely and in good conscience* before God, by this our subscription, that we *from the heart think and believe* that all the articles and particular points of doctrine contained in this Confession and Catechism of the Dutch Reformed Church together with the declaration on some points of this doctrine made by the National Synod held at Dordrecht in 1619 *agree in everything with the Word of God*. We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend this very doctrine without publicly or privately, directly or indirectly teaching or writing anything against this doctrine. We also not only reject all errors contrary to this doctrine which are condemned by the Synod of Dort, but we also want to refute and oppose them and give every effort that they might be kept away from the Church. *And if at some later time it should happen that we foster any different consideration or sentiment *against this doctrine, we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately propose, teach, or defend such a view either in preaching or in writing, but *we will first reveal this view to the consistory, the classis and the synod so that it may be examined*. We are always ready to submit with a willing spirit to the judgment of the consistory, classis or synod, under penalty that if we act in a contrary way, we are by that very fact suspended from our offices. But if the consistory, classis or synod ever on serious reasons for suspicion, in order to preserve the unity and sincerity of doctrine, would wish to ask of us that we explain more fully our opinion about some article of this Confession, Catechism or Synodical declarations, we promise also always to be ready and willing to respond to such a request, under the same penalty stated above, reserving however to ourselves the right of appeal if we should believe that we have been grieved by the judgment of the consistory, classis or synod, during which appeal we will acquiesce in the judgment and determination of the provincial synod._



That's a very good statement, I admit. My problem, though, is that, in my experience, I've run across Reformed people (not very many, fortunately) who are positively obsessed with the secondary standards - always going to them first, instead of the Scriptures (because Bible study is hard while looking up something in the standards is easy?) - to answer theological or practical questions.

Further, these same people are *so* obsessed with the standards that they claim that, not only can they not be changed, they can't even be questioned. They've raised the standards to a position higher than the Word of God. 

That's why the quia position makes me nervous. It's so easy to just let yourself slide into a position where the standards answer all questions, with the Bible - unconsciously in most cases - assuming a secondary position.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> These three benefits come directly from Romans 4, 6, and 8. If a preacher simply used those three points and those three texts, would he not be preaching the Word of God?



Once? OK. Twice? Maybe. But every year?

I agree it is a false dichotomy to speak of preaching from Scripture instead of the catechism -- the catechism faithfully expounds Scripture; but I do not think it is a false dichotomy to insist on preaching *systematically* through Scripture instead of preaching systematically through the catechism, especially seeing the catechism purports to be a *systematic* exposition of Scripture. You are then preaching a system of a system, which is in effect making a copy of a copy. It is best to make a copy of the original. Less fading results.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 21, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> Richard,
> 
> I understand the concern, but this is a false quandry. No one says the Confessions are infallible and inerrant. Instead, we confess them because they are biblical. They have no authority of their own, but derive their authority from Scripture, the norma normata. This is a legitimate difference in our confessional traditions. We confess what we do because (quia) it agrees with the Word of God, while our Presbyterian brothers (at least American Presbyterians) do so in so far as (quatenus) it agrees with the Word of God.
> 
> ...





armourbearer said:


> Once? OK. Twice? Maybe. But every year?
> 
> I agree it is a false dichotomy to speak of preaching from Scripture instead of the catechism -- the catechism faithfully expounds Scripture; but I do not think it is a false dichotomy to insist on preaching *systematically* through Scripture instead of preaching systematically through the catechism, especially seeing the catechism purports to be a *systematic* exposition of Scripture. You are then preaching a system of a system, which is in effect making a copy of a copy. It is best to make a copy of the original. Less fading results.


Rev. Winzer,

Maybe I'm reading Rev. Hyde a bit differently here. I think his concern (and criticism) of the way many approach their exegesis is that each week becomes a somewhat new process of dogmatics to mine the texts and determine (for instance) what the Biblical view of a particular doctrine is. He used a good example: the resurrection of Christ.

It would seem to me that, in addition to the normal exegetical work to be done that week, a minister would want to consult how the Confession _confesses_ concerning those doctrines. Perhaps it might remind him of something or keep him in check lest he want to teach on something that is counter-Confessional. Perhaps, for a particular doctrine, he might even build upon what the Confession says and elaborate further given the particular context.

Interestingly, when we're in discussions on the PB, I find you to be one of the more consistent folks who reminds people of what the Scriptures say using our Confessions as a guide. I don't view you as answering a Scriptural question with the Confession, per se, but you do bound your interpretation of the Scriptures to the Church's testimony of certain dogmatic issues.

Maybe a more fitting example that Rev. Hyde might have offered is Baptism. As we're all aware, we have plenty of ministers who have "exegeted" the Scriptures to come up with a contra-Confessional view of what Baptism confers. I'm thinking here of the Federal Vision. Were they to place more value in the Church's testimony of the Word and less in their own personal systematics, they might avoid such error. We both have recently engaged some others who want to jettison the Confession, when convenient, because it doesn't comport with their interpretation of the Word of God.



bookslover said:


> That's a very good statement, I admit. My problem, though, is that, in my experience, I've run across Reformed people (not very many, fortunately) who are positively obsessed with the secondary standards - always going to them first, instead of the Scriptures (because Bible study is hard while looking up something in the standards is easy?) - to answer theological or practical questions.
> 
> Further, these same people are *so* obsessed with the standards that they claim that, not only can they not be changed, they can't even be questioned. They've raised the standards to a position higher than the Word of God.
> 
> That's why the quia position makes me nervous. It's so easy to just let yourself slide into a position where the standards answer all questions, with the Bible - unconsciously in most cases - assuming a secondary position.


Richard,

I agree with this but it's been my experience that this is the case because people don't know the Scriptural reasons why the Confessions are right on these issues. This whole issue of the "Confession v. the Scriptures" keeps coming up. I'm sure some people reading me might start believing that I'm taking a slavish view of the Confessions but I've tried to be very careful to separate the Confession from the Authority itself. I believe Rev. Hyde articulates it very well. 

I honestly don't know enough about the history of American Presbyterian Confessionalism and cannot form my thoughts in the historic and theological language with the same skill as Revs. Winzer and Hyde can. I do become increasingly convinced of the Truth that the unity of the faith, which Paul exhorts the Church to is not achieved by each man going to the Scriptures outside the context of the Church, and then Confessing with the Church only when he agrees the Church is correct. What kind of unity of the faith is that? Whether or not a Confession is infallible, it still remains with the Church to settle matters of controversy. Were it not so, discipline would be impossible at the local and the Presbytery level.

It seems to me that everybody wants to enforce discipline when it agrees with their convictions but then they want to strip the Church of its authority if it doesn't. Witness recent discussions where FV folk want to denigrate the PCA for declaring something is against the WCF. Men who speak against the Confession of a Church in such a way are really saying that, when push comes to shove, their individual authority to settle such matters exceeds that of the Church as a whole.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Maybe I'm reading Rev. Hyde a bit differently here. I think his concern (and criticism) of the way many approach their exegesis is that each week becomes a somewhat new process of dogmatics to mine the texts and determine (for instance) what the Biblical view of a particular doctrine is. He used a good example: the resurrection of Christ.



Rich, If it were a simple matter of turning to the catechism to see how Scripture should be expounded, well and good. But I think this thread pertains to preaching the catechism as is traditionally done in Dutch Reformed churches.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Rich, If it were a simple matter of turning to the catechism to see how Scripture should be expounded, well and good. But I think this thread pertains to preaching the catechism as is traditionally done in Dutch Reformed churches.



Roger, I thought so too but then I detected that maybe something a bit different was being argued for by Rev. Hyde. I might be wrong. I do appreciate these discussions because it helps me process all this stuff that I've encountered before but only in brief.


----------



## Poimen (May 21, 2007)

Paul commands Titus and Timothy to preach and teach doctrine. Thus I believe that the Catechism may be used as a template to introduce the biblical doctrines to the Church but may not be used the primary resource for doctrines. 

One benefit of this preaching is that the minister does not get to pick and choose his pet dogmas or interests but is guided into preaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:28) 

Another benefit is that the church is constantly reminded of the law & gospel (the two parts of scripture as expounded, compared and contrasted throughout the Heidelberg Catechism). Also the church is exposed to the basic doctrines of the faith so as to be properly guarded and grounded in the midst of the current doctrinal and confessional confusion of our day. 

Finally, some anecdotal evidence: the Reformed churches have practiced teaching and preaching the Bible from the Catechism for over 400 years. The fruit it has born in the lives of God's people is most evident to those who continue this practice.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 21, 2007)

Let me say that I have been spiritually refreshed over these last several months from regularly worshipping at a URCNA church. The importance of basic instruction from the pulpit in the doctrines of the faith cannot be overstated. And the catechetical instruction serves as a legitimate framework for that instruction.

One of the things that I noticed about the PCA was a lack of regular instruction from the Standards in the Reformed faith. Anecdotally, we had a couple who came to our church many years ago from a rather large and well-known PCA church, a place where they had been members for over a decade, and they admitted that not once did they have the opportunity to attend a class of instruction from the Westminster Confession. (I happened to be teaching an adult SS class in our church at the time.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 21, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> Let me say that I have been spiritually refreshed over these last several months from regularly worshipping at a URCNA church. The importance of basic instruction from the pulpit in the doctrines of the faith cannot be overstated. And the catechetical instruction serves as a legitimate framework for that instruction.
> 
> One of the things that I noticed about the PCA was a lack of regular instruction from the Standards in the Reformed faith. Anecdotally, we had a couple who came to our church many years ago from a rather large and well-known PCA church, a place where they had been members for over a decade, and they admitted that not once did they have the opportunity to attend a class of instruction from the Westminster Confession. (I happened to be teaching an adult SS class in our church at the time.)


I believe that anecdote. That would be an accurate summation of the two PCA Churches I was a member of. Both were Churches where elder care was virtually non-existant and both did little or nothing for adult catechism or ensuring that children were being catechized in the home.

I sent a message to the Elders of the Church I attended in VA lamenting the lack of adult instruction. The junior high kids I taught Sunday School to were uniformly igorant of the Shorter Catechism (save one young man). In fact, if I hadn't insisted on teaching the catechism directly instead of the lame stuff that passes for curriculum in the PCA Churches, they wouldn't have been taught it very well at all. The other man who shared teaching duties with me wasn't really even able to fill in for me for the few Sundays I couldn't teach because he scarcely understood it. I point that out not to boast but to the shame of our level of instruction in many Churches.

It wasn't that the Church didn't have some good Sunday School lessons but they tended to be a smattering of different interesting topics while the adults in the Church went largely untrained. I remember listening with relative shock at the testimony of a man who started to teach the congregation doctrine that denied fundamental tenets of the Confession. I went to the Pastor afterward shocked and he knew it was wrong. I was always puzzled by the lack of resolve in the Elders to correct these issues though.

I'm absolutely convinced that if most OPC and PCA Churches made just a little bit greater effort to gather the adults for regular catechetical instruction on the fundamentals of the Christian faith (the Godhead, Man, the Fall, justification, etc) that the fruit would be amazing.

My personal opinion is that catechetical instruction should be regular and ongoing but needn't be part of the sermon.


----------



## bookslover (May 21, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> ...but you do bound your interpretation of the Scriptures to the Church's testimony of certain dogmatic issues.



Well, this is an example of what I mean, Rich. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Rather, shouldn't the Church's testimony be bound to the Scriptures?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 21, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Well, this is an example of what I mean, Rich. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Rather, shouldn't the Church's testimony be bound to the Scriptures?



Yes. The Church testifies of the Scriptures. My point is that we don't go to the Scriptures as if the Church doesn't exist, come up with a personal systematics, and then agree with the Church on the interpretation when it suits. The Church doesn't infallibly interpret the Scriptures but it is the role of synods and councils to settle matters of controversy concerning such things.

Imagine if I'm a man found in an adulterous relationship. The elders come to me and say: "You need to repent."

"Repent of what?", says I.

"Repent of adultery."

"Oh", I say, "that was culturally conditioned. That no longer applies. That was for the Old Testament."

Now, you see, I could claim that if the Church decides that their interpretation is authoratative that they are putting themselves before the Scriptures. You see, _I_ have determined that adultery is not a sin anymore based on _my_ interpretation of the Scriptures.

This is a micro-example that is easy to understand.

On a macro level then, I'm not arguing that the authority for what the Church does is the Church but it does have an authority to interpret the Scirptures that I do not. I am not permitted to settle matters of controversy for myself. I must listen to and submit to the testimony of the Church. I _confess_ with the Church that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches the doctrines of Scripture. It is authoratative because it agrees with Scripture and the Church has authority to testify of it and discipline by it because it is given that authority by Christ and by His Word. _I_ have not been given the authority to testify to the meaning of the Scriptures in myself.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 21, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Finally, some anecdotal evidence: the Reformed churches have practiced teaching and preaching the Bible from the Catechism for over 400 years. The fruit it has born in the lives of God's people is most evident to those who continue this practice.



Right! And I would add that Catechetical preaching also has a long pedigree in the catholic (used in the good sense) church, even going back to the early church.


----------

