New City Catechism

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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

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.
 
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.

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

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
 
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.

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

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.

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?
 
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.

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

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.

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?

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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Tim, my post was referring to what jandrusk originally posted, not your comment of "It was co-authored by Tim Keller."
 
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
 
It aught to be pointed out (so I will :cool: ) 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.
 
It aught to be pointed out (so I will :cool: ) 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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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,
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
well, then we seek any tool that might break through and start to address some of these challenges.

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

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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:

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

Why can't it be that simple?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top