Visscher—Why Catechism Preaching
- Thread starter dannyhyde
- Start date
- Status
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Thanks for sharing that article, Pastor Hyde!
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
All preaching should be from Scripture only, not from the secondary standards.
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Richard,
This is one of the major differences between historic, continental Reformed subscription and practice and modern, American Presbyterianism. We believe and confess our confessions because (quia) they are biblical, not only in so far as (quatenus) they are biblical.
Take for example Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 45. If I preach the significance of the resurrection of Jesus as benefitting us in the areas of our justification (Rom. 4), sanctification (Rom. 6), and glorification (Rom. 8), how have I preached something not from Scripture?
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear Danny,
Let me begin by saying that I'm a believer in creeds and confessions. We need them, and we need to value (good) tradition. We also need to teach creeds and catechisms to the flock. But I'm hesitant to bring them into the pulpit of public church.
This is because there is something critical at stake here: It's not just the content of Scripture but the form that is also inspired. That is, it's not just what Scripture says, but the way it says it.
I could sum up the book of Job in a proposition. But it's altogether another thing to read it for itself (and have it's nuances expounded) with it's soaring poetry and agonizing rhetoric.
Moreover, in Scripture God has seen it fit to give us an inspired book that combines theology in real life experimental situations (very much unlike many creeds that state the truth without implications and applications).
Due to the inspiration of Scripture, public preaching in church should (predominantly) focus on on preaching through books in Scripture so that:
[1] We get God's hobby horses, and not the fallible hobby horses of humans.
[2] We preserve not simply what is said, but the way it is said.
[3] Doctrine is never taught apart from real life contexts and praxis.
I love the three forms of unity. But I love the Bible more. In my humble opinion too often confessional Christians are quicker to quote from a confession than Scripture itself.
The Bible is not just a repository of doctrines its the great ministry tool.
God bless you.
Let me begin by saying that I'm a believer in creeds and confessions. We need them, and we need to value (good) tradition. We also need to teach creeds and catechisms to the flock. But I'm hesitant to bring them into the pulpit of public church.
This is because there is something critical at stake here: It's not just the content of Scripture but the form that is also inspired. That is, it's not just what Scripture says, but the way it says it.
I could sum up the book of Job in a proposition. But it's altogether another thing to read it for itself (and have it's nuances expounded) with it's soaring poetry and agonizing rhetoric.
Moreover, in Scripture God has seen it fit to give us an inspired book that combines theology in real life experimental situations (very much unlike many creeds that state the truth without implications and applications).
Due to the inspiration of Scripture, public preaching in church should (predominantly) focus on on preaching through books in Scripture so that:
[1] We get God's hobby horses, and not the fallible hobby horses of humans.
[2] We preserve not simply what is said, but the way it is said.
[3] Doctrine is never taught apart from real life contexts and praxis.
I love the three forms of unity. But I love the Bible more. In my humble opinion too often confessional Christians are quicker to quote from a confession than Scripture itself.
The Bible is not just a repository of doctrines its the great ministry tool.
God bless you.
Last edited:
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
That, as I understand it, is the point of catechism preaching. It holds men to the doctrines of the Word, not to the catechism or men's opinions. The catechism structure is used to ensure that ministers cover the whole spectrum of doctrine, and do not include what is not warranted.
That's what catechism preaching is meant to ensure. It is not meant to elevate any writing of men to the level of Scripture. In fact, that is one of the teachings of that catechism, that the Bible is the only authority for doctrine and life, including that which is preached from pulpits.
Well noted!
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Danny:
It would be easier (and, of course, thoroughly biblical) to preach justification from Romans 4, sanctification from Romans 6, and glorification from Romans 8. That's why God has given us His Word.
The Bible is inspired, inerrant and infallible. Creeds and confessions are not (and it's no good trying to bring those three items in through the back door to the creeds and confessions by saying that they only reflect what the Bible teaches.)
To preach from creeds and confession, in my opinion, is to de facto lift them up to the same position as Scripture. Only Scripture should be preached from the pulpit - and the WCF implies as much when it states that the final judgment as to doctrine rests with the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures (I'm paraphrasing).
And, as I've said elsewhere, Isaiah 8:20 does NOT say: "To the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms...".
Nope. Preaching is to be done only from the Bible. Creeds and confessions make excellent reference works, but are not to be considered as being the same thing as Scripture.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Let me rephrase what I said above. I've seen bad catechism preaching too. But for all the abuses that creep in, it was not because the intent of catechism preaching was followed, but because it was ignored and neglected. I too would object to these things. If you see catechism preaching where men's writings, even the Church's own statements of faith, are elevated unduly, then stand against it, by all means. But that does not change the fact that right catechism preaching is nothing other than ensuring sytematic Bible preaching. Going through book by book is another system, not necessarily opposed to the doctrinal system.
It does not mean that ministers don't preach through the Bible books, or that they don't preach topical sermons, or that they don't preach to the needs of the congregations. It should be especially noted that properly supervised catechism preaching takes place in churches where there are two services per Lord's Day, not less. And it is usually the second service, the one more dedicated to teaching, that ministers preach the Word according to the order of the catechism's systematic instruction of the doctrines of grace, so that the whole of it is covered, and not just the things the minister wishes to preach on. It ensures that ministers are bound to preaching the whole counsel of God, not subject to their own inclinations or emphases. In this sense, the catechism does not represent the writings of men, but the declaration and witness of the Church by the Spirit and the Word.
It is not less than preaching from the Word, for it is meant to ensure that the preaching is from the Word, all of the Word, and nothing else but the Word. It is meant to ensure a whole Biblical context in every sermon, but especially in the teachings on the doctrines the Church believes.
It does not mean that ministers don't preach through the Bible books, or that they don't preach topical sermons, or that they don't preach to the needs of the congregations. It should be especially noted that properly supervised catechism preaching takes place in churches where there are two services per Lord's Day, not less. And it is usually the second service, the one more dedicated to teaching, that ministers preach the Word according to the order of the catechism's systematic instruction of the doctrines of grace, so that the whole of it is covered, and not just the things the minister wishes to preach on. It ensures that ministers are bound to preaching the whole counsel of God, not subject to their own inclinations or emphases. In this sense, the catechism does not represent the writings of men, but the declaration and witness of the Church by the Spirit and the Word.
It is not less than preaching from the Word, for it is meant to ensure that the preaching is from the Word, all of the Word, and nothing else but the Word. It is meant to ensure a whole Biblical context in every sermon, but especially in the teachings on the doctrines the Church believes.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Are we talking about taking the theme of such and such part of the catechism and picking a text that matches it, or are we talking about exegeting the catechism itself?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I've never heard of exegeting the catechism. Each catechism has reference numbers all through it, connecting each with a specific list of Bible texts. It is those teachings that are being taught: brought together and summarized by the catechism; telling of the direct teachings of the Bible. The catechism on its own doesn't teach a thing if it doesn't teach the Bible's teachings.
Maybe there are some misperceptions about catachism preaching. The minister doesn't set his Bible aside, open to the back of the Psalter to the Heidelberg Catachism, and say, "The text for today is taken from the Heidelberg Catachism instead of the Bible." The proper formulary spoken by the minister, after reading the appropriate Scriptures, is, "The text for this afternoon is God's Word as summarized for us in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 2, questions and answers 3, 4, and 5." That is, it is not one particular text, but many texts including: Romans 3 and 7; Deut. 6; Lev. 19; I John 1; Gen. 6 and 8; Jer. 17; Eph. 2; and Tit. 3. The text is not the catechism, but the teaching coming out of all these texts, as summarized for us in the catechism.
It is not a random picking of a theme, but a systematic approach to all the themes of Bible doctrine.
The catechism has been scrutinized for many centuries for their wholeness and completeness in its summarization of the Bible doctrine. It is balanced, and consistent. You often find ministers using different words than the catechism in their sermon, but usually going back to the catechism's terms, and especially as these terms to back to the Bible's own terms.
In actual fact, the catechism ought to seem to disappear in the process of catechism preaching. It's not about the catechism; it's about the Word. And it's about deliberately tying the minister of the Word to preaching the whole counsel of God. This does not include the minister's own opinions on this or that, unless and only unless those opinions are those written in the summary of doctrines of the Church. He has no licence to teach anything other than the Word of God. This is, in other words, one method of ensuring the first mark of the Church, the purity of the preaching of the Word.
Rev. Hyde,
This is an over-generalization, and simply is not factually correct. Dabney (among others in a non-"modern" context) in his Sacred Rhetoric (also published now under the title Evangelical Eloquence) makes the point that preaching should be from Scripture and not from any other text. That does not rule out "topical" preaching, so long as it is Scripture that is being exegeted and expounded, not some other text.
I find this to be a weakness, not a strength in the Dutch tradition (which I respect very much).
We do not seek to elevate the Heidelburg Catechism itself, Zacharias Ursinus & Caspar Olevianus were just men, we know that. But as a systematic statement of faith and organization of Biblical themes and topics, it is an indispensible aid.bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
The latter formulation pretty much amounts to the former formulation. And the effect is the same; it substitutes a man-made document for the Word of God.
For preaching purposes, one doesn't need to have the inspired text summarized by a creed or confession. One should always preach exclusively from the Word of God, with all creeds and confessions banned from the pulpit.
This does not seem to me to be a reasonable inference from the valid premise that we ought only to preach from the Bible. If the Shorter Catechism provides an excellent definition of justification why would we ban it from the pulpit and opt for a second rate definition?
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
A second-rate definition from the Bible, as opposed to the catechism? Surely you jest...
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
How about taking the doctrinal topic of a particular catechism, say, justification by faith alone, and expounding the biblical data on it. Then bringing in the catechism question and answer as a summary of the biblical data. Isn't that what is meant by "Catechism Preaching?"
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think its the same idea, Richard: preaching exclusively from the Word of God. That's the point of catechism teaching.
I've pondered the formulary for quite a while. At first blush, after going back to the Continental church, I too raised my eyebrows. I had switched to Presbyterian but came back. I'd heard the formulation many times, but took especial note of it when I came back. You see, preaching the Word had been a big issue with me, and one of the reasons I left the Presbyterian church. I went over it and over it, because it didn't sit right. But as I worked at it phrase by phrase, I began to see it for what it was, in simple terms. All the encumberances fell off eventually, and it began to make sense. Our ministers who preach from the catechism are careful how they say it.
But there's the rub, "preaching from the catechism". I understand what you're driving at. I fully agree. I still maintain all that I said about using the catechism to ensure the first mark of the Church, but I agree with your main point.
I suppose one can compare this discussion to the example of a minor league team coming in wearing the colours of the major league team, pretending to be them. Let's say they call themselves the Yankees. Critics from all over the place are throwing all kinds of bad reviews at the "Yankees" for their poor play, their minor league mistakes, their constant losses. But, you see, it's not the Yankees. They're not criticising the Yankees. They're criticising some other team.
It's that way with a lot of criticisms of our churches. You can throw criticisms at something, but you have to ask if you're throwing criticisms at the real thing or at the misuse and abuse of it. For example, catechism sermons are meant to ensure that the sermons remain strictly Biblical. It does not introduce men's writings, or the Church's own declared statements of faith, as if the Bible somehow depended upon them. In fact, that goes directly contrary to these statements themselves. Criticising it for raising men's writings to the level of the Word of God is criticising something else, namely the misuse and abuse of it. That's not what it's supposed to be. Not at all. That's the opposite of what it's supposed to be.
Ministers use examples, they quote the forefathers, they bring in lessons, all from outside the Word, and doing this during the sermon. Catechism sermons do not even do that. All that is ensured is that the doctrines from the Word of God are preached. Everything else disappears from view. The Word, and only the Word: strictly the Word and nothing else. And especially not unwarranted opinions of even the godliest men.
Richard, the reference to "definition" was in relation to explaining what the Bible itself teaches. You have the Catechism's definition or you could formulate your own. E.g., "justification is an act." Now the Bible nowhere uses this phrase, but it is a correct definition of what is justification as taught by the Bible. Of course, you could omit the definition, but you would only succeed in leaving your hearers in a state of confusion as to whether justification is an act or a process.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
That's usually the way it is done. It's instructional, though, so it helps to read the catechism at the beginning of the sermon so that everyone can follow the Biblical connections and inter-relationships better. It is meant to build up the congregation in the faith, to strengthen them in the knowledge of the Word.
Well said John in Post #19.
I don't know how many times the same idea has to be repeated. Richard, I know why you don't like trust in the Confessions and I don't appreciate you trashing them constantly. You claim to be Confessional and then take every opportunity to pretend like the Word of God says one thing but the Confessions themselves don't accurately summarize their teaching.
Let me take a pick between two choices:
1. The exegesis of a man who comes to a passage about Justification by Faith who has a Seminary education and some average Greek and Hebrew skills.
2. The exegesis of hundreds of men who have agreed on the topic of Justification, as the Scriptures see it, for hundreds of years.
Now, there are some that are always going to be suspicious of number 2. We call it NIH in the military to stand for "Not Invented Here." That is, the only good ideas are those that originate in me.
You continually misrepresent the case that somehow the Scriptures are un-interpreted. Perhaps your opinion is that the infallible meaning is simply channeled through the Preacher to the congregation when he preaches directly from the Word. Somehow when he exegetes Romans on Justification by Faith, his explanation is more profound or more holy because the Church's interpretation was written before he was born. The interpretation of the one far outstrips the interpretation of the many (contrary to the Proverb).
Interestingly, Rev. Winzer isn't coming to the defense to the idea of Catechetical Preaching as a practice. I do know, though, that if a passage he was teaching on touched on a doctrine of the Church, he wouldn't hesitate to read the Confession and "have a conversation" with his Godly forbears on the meaning of a particular doctrine by reading what they had to say in the Confession. He also would be true to his vows to be faithful to the Church's Confession of those truths and wouldn't simply jettison the idea because, lo, Rev. Winzer is cleverer than the Church that has come before him.
I'm quite weary of this discussion and I know the reason it keeps being brought up. I will not long tolerate the latent attitude that "...my interpretation of the Scripture is better than the Church's..." that leads to an impious charge that everybody who places more trust in the counsel of many are blindly attributing infallibility to the Confessions.
I don't know how many times the same idea has to be repeated. Richard, I know why you don't like trust in the Confessions and I don't appreciate you trashing them constantly. You claim to be Confessional and then take every opportunity to pretend like the Word of God says one thing but the Confessions themselves don't accurately summarize their teaching.
Let me take a pick between two choices:
1. The exegesis of a man who comes to a passage about Justification by Faith who has a Seminary education and some average Greek and Hebrew skills.
2. The exegesis of hundreds of men who have agreed on the topic of Justification, as the Scriptures see it, for hundreds of years.
Now, there are some that are always going to be suspicious of number 2. We call it NIH in the military to stand for "Not Invented Here." That is, the only good ideas are those that originate in me.
You continually misrepresent the case that somehow the Scriptures are un-interpreted. Perhaps your opinion is that the infallible meaning is simply channeled through the Preacher to the congregation when he preaches directly from the Word. Somehow when he exegetes Romans on Justification by Faith, his explanation is more profound or more holy because the Church's interpretation was written before he was born. The interpretation of the one far outstrips the interpretation of the many (contrary to the Proverb).
Interestingly, Rev. Winzer isn't coming to the defense to the idea of Catechetical Preaching as a practice. I do know, though, that if a passage he was teaching on touched on a doctrine of the Church, he wouldn't hesitate to read the Confession and "have a conversation" with his Godly forbears on the meaning of a particular doctrine by reading what they had to say in the Confession. He also would be true to his vows to be faithful to the Church's Confession of those truths and wouldn't simply jettison the idea because, lo, Rev. Winzer is cleverer than the Church that has come before him.
I'm quite weary of this discussion and I know the reason it keeps being brought up. I will not long tolerate the latent attitude that "...my interpretation of the Scripture is better than the Church's..." that leads to an impious charge that everybody who places more trust in the counsel of many are blindly attributing infallibility to the Confessions.
Rich,
I don't agree with the attitude that Richard is espousing, but it is perfectly Confessional to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone. I use the Standards in my study to assist me in preaching on certain texts. But I want my people to see the beauty and truthfulness of the Standards from the Scriptures. When we start with the catechism and "come back around" to the Bible, we give (1) the wrong impression of authority, and (2) we hinder seeing a doctrine in context. Much better to preach about justification by faith alone in the context of Paul's epistle to the Galatians (with all the attendant pastoral thoughts of Paul) than as a summary of a summary.
It is indeed a grave error that men do not know or give respect to the Confessions. But it is a graver error of our time that men do not know or give deference to the Scriptures.
Again, I refer us all to Dabney, no slouch at defending the Standards, who firmly was against "catechism preaching."
I don't agree with the attitude that Richard is espousing, but it is perfectly Confessional to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone. I use the Standards in my study to assist me in preaching on certain texts. But I want my people to see the beauty and truthfulness of the Standards from the Scriptures. When we start with the catechism and "come back around" to the Bible, we give (1) the wrong impression of authority, and (2) we hinder seeing a doctrine in context. Much better to preach about justification by faith alone in the context of Paul's epistle to the Galatians (with all the attendant pastoral thoughts of Paul) than as a summary of a summary.
It is indeed a grave error that men do not know or give respect to the Confessions. But it is a graver error of our time that men do not know or give deference to the Scriptures.
Again, I refer us all to Dabney, no slouch at defending the Standards, who firmly was against "catechism preaching."
Fred,
I am more irked by his response to Rev. Winzer than any. If you read Rev. Winzer's above (and my post en toto) I am not advocating catechetical preaching. I'm advocating respect for the Confessions. This is a pattern.
I am more irked by his response to Rev. Winzer than any. If you read Rev. Winzer's above (and my post en toto) I am not advocating catechetical preaching. I'm advocating respect for the Confessions. This is a pattern.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm not trashing them. I'm just interested in keeping them in their place - and that place is not the pulpit. Personally, I'm glad Matthew Winzer and I are in the same place on this issue.
Use the secondary standards in Sunday School classes. Use them in personal study. But keep them out of the pulpit.
The standards are good summaries of Bible doctrine. But that makes them neither inspired, infallible, or inerrant. Those terms must be reserved ONLY for the Scriptures. Even the WCF recognizes its own fallibility, as I've noted several times before.
Well let me say, in case I wasn't clear, I agree with Rev. Winzer, who agrees with Fred. Oh, and I agree with John too. 
What you do, though, is impiously charge Godly men with bringing Creeds and Confessions to the level of infallible Scripture. That is simply inexcusable given a fair representation of what their goal is. I may not agree with the practice but to state that the men are simply exegeting the Catechisms is fallacious and serves other ends rather than the truth of the matter.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Maybe there's another mispreception too: that the catechism is read instead of the Scriptures. I think you'd hear from the elders pretty quickly if you tried that one. An entire passage is read, context and all, and in the sermon cross-references are brought up. The sermon is on the whole passage, including the cross-references. That's just another way of saying it is a catechism sermon.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
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!
- Status
