Visscher—Why Catechism Preaching

Status
Not open for further replies.
The standards are good summaries of Bible doctrine. But that makes them neither inspired, infallible, or inerrant. Those terms must be reserved ONLY for the Scriptures. Even the WCF recognizes its own fallibility, as I've noted several times before.

I agree. No quibble with that.
 
Actually, it is perfectly biblical to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone. One doesn't need the confession's permission to preach from the Scriptures!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough, but how does using the standards take away from the language, narratives, etc? Would you allow for a preacher to use an extra-biblical analogy in demonstrating a point of scripture? See what I'm driving at?
 
Has anyone compared Rev. Hyde's avatar with Prof. Murray's portrait on his Collected Writings? What a difference colourful book covers can make! :)
 
Has anyone compared Rev. Hyde's avatar with Prof. Murray's portrait on his Collected Writings? What a difference colourful book covers can make! :)

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

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

Strike two.

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

Likewise, as these terms were mentioned somewhere above in the discussion, the main difference between a healthy view and an overly dependent view of the confessions in the life of the church is the distinction between seeing them as quatenus or quia in their relationship with the Scriptures. Taking them as the latter tends to give them an infallability in practice. This understanding is in fact the basis for catechetical preaching in the Dutch tradition. We had read one essay in our preaching courses that was authored by a Dutch Reformed minister (whose name eludes me at the moment) who actually stated that we are to preach from the catechisms of the church because they have an authority equal to the Scriptures! Now, subsequently this author tried to stress that they are secondary standards, but it was obvious that he was doing so in an attempt to deflect the rightful charge that he we unduly elevating them to a level of authority reserved only for the Scriptures. This is a real danger, and one that I believe is the motive behind Richard's statements.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the catechism is superior than a single preachers understanding. Saying that preaching must be "from the word of God" would not exclude preaching from catechism, yet you exclude them. It seems to me that you are elevating the opinions of men over the teachings of the Church. I think that is where Rich is coming from, but I could be misunderstanding it.

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

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

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

Confessions are a useful tool and guide for study, debate, and maintaining some standard of doctrine within ecclesiastical bodies. They will not solve all doctrinal ills, nor provide the church with infallible interpretations of Scripture, nor were they ever written with that intent.
 
We had read one essay in our preaching courses that was authored by a Dutch Reformed minister (whose name eludes me at the moment) who actually stated that we are to preach from the catechisms of the church because they have an authority equal to the Scriptures! Now, subsequently this author tried to stress that they are secondary standards, but it was obvious that he was doing so in an attempt to deflect the rightful charge that he we unduly elevating them to a level of authority reserved only for the Scriptures. This is a real danger, and one that I believe is the motive behind Richard's statements.

Adam,

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

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

Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin Monsma, The Church Order Commentary (Credo Books: Wyoming, MI: reprinted 2003), 276–80.
 
I recently was reading an excellent sermon by Martin Luther (the 23rd Sunday after Trinity Sunday?) where he was decrying the binding effect that the opinions of the church fathers and church councils had upon men's minds, and he had no problem whatsoever in stating that it was the Word of God alone that was to be proclaimed. There was no mention of the necessity of "the Church", nor interpretation through confessions, nor what have you.

Adam,

You need to read Luther, as all words, in their total context. After all, the words you quote come from the lips of the same Martin Luther who was thrust into duty as chief catechist in Wittenberg in the absence of its pastor, Johannes Bugenhagan. His catechetical sermons in 1529 became the source of his Large Catechism.
 
Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word, which we know to be the Holy Scriptures. There were no confessions or catechisms as we know them in that period of the church, yet Paul also indicates to Timothy that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for life and godliness, which includes doctrine. I would agree with Richard that ministers do not need the approval of confessional documents to preach only the Word, when there is apostolic directive to do so.

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

Adam:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

I would not be nearly as opposed to ministers preaching catechetical sermons on occasion by their own volition, where they see a need for it in a specific setting. The problem with the Dutch tradition, however, is that they require it by their BCO's, thus binding the consciences of their ministers to it whether they believe it to be proper or not. I have known several good men who were interested in the URCNA who were ultimately unable to consider ministering within that body due to this stricture.
 
I'm uncertain why that statement was a strike. Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word, which we know to be the Holy Scriptures. There were no confessions or catechisms as we know them in that period of the church, yet Paul also indicates to Timothy that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for life and godliness, which includes doctrine. I would agree with Richard that ministers do not need the approval of confessional documents to preach only the Word, when there is apostolic directive to do so.

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

1. Look at the comment in the thread in context.
2. Look who he was correcting on the point and what the intended understanding of the man was when he said "...it is confessional...."
3. Look at my warning to stop accusing Godly men of treating the Confessions as infallible documents.
4. There is a history that extends prior to this discussion. This pattern is not as innocuous as it may appear at first blush.
 
I would not be nearly as opposed to ministers preaching catechetical sermons on occasion by their own volition, where they see a need for it in a specific setting.

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

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

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

Of course, Luther was not bound to a fixed BCO/catechism practice as the URCNA binds their ministers. As you note, he even wrote his own catechism(s). Writing one's own catechism, and then using it in teaching in the church would probably be decried by a some as "teaching the commandments of men", and would most likely be frowned upon as a practice, since it would have been produced by an individual interpreter of the Scriptures. Catachetical sermons have been found throughout the history of the church, from the fathers through the Reformation, but most of them were written and taught of the minister's own volition, not as an enforceable practice.
 
Confessions are a useful tool and guide for study, debate, and maintaining some standard of doctrine within ecclesiastical bodies.
I think this understates the case a bit. Confessions are the Church's confession and summary of the doctrines contained in the Scripture. Depending upon what you mean by the terms above, it's the reason why many men in the FV can see the decisions of Church Councils and yawn at the decision that their views are un-Confessional. After all, they're just "useful guides for study and debate" and to maintain "some" standard of doctrine.

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

And so they blow them off.

They will not solve all doctrinal ills, nor provide the church with infallible interpretations of Scripture, nor were they ever written with that intent.
Are we supposed to say: "Oh, really?" Is this somehow added information to the context of this discussion.
 
This OPC article on Catechetical Preaching and this previous thread on Presbyterians and Catechism Preaching may be of interest.

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

I haven't seen what Williamson may have written after Knodel's article, but he gave qualified approval to catechetical preaching in this 1994 article.
 
I'm uncertain why that statement was a strike. Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word, which we know to be the Holy Scriptures. There were no confessions or catechisms as we know them in that period of the church, yet Paul also indicates to Timothy that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for life and godliness, which includes doctrine. I would agree with Richard that ministers do not need the approval of confessional documents to preach only the Word, when there is apostolic directive to do so.

A couple other points on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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