Posted on 07/25/2013 10:44:56 AM PDT by Gamecock
I’ve just returned from Heidelberg, Germany, where I joined brothers and sisters from around the world to celebrate the 450th anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism. In addition to illuminating papers and warm fellowship, we enjoyed one of the city’s several museum exhibits celebrating the anniversary. Of special note was the Heidelberg Palace exhibit, “The Power of Faith: 450 Years of the Heidelberg Catechism.”
Frederick III, ruler of the Palatinate and imperial elector, was nicknamed “the pious” by fellow princes. Embracing Reformed teaching, he was distressed with the low level of knowledge of even the basics of the Christian faith in his territory. Drawing together the best theologians and pastors in the region, he oversaw (and even contributed to) the drafting of a catechism that would be taught in schools, churches, and homes.
Soon after publication in 1563, the Heidelberg Catechism was translated into various languages—including early modern Hebrew and Greek. It soon enjoyed wide use in the English-speaking world as well. Students learned this catechism at Oxford and Cambridge. Today, it is more widely known and used in Asia, Africa, and the Americas than in Europe or even North America. As my children repeat back the clear teaching of the gospel from this great catechism, I am reinvigorated in my own faith.
Yet in Germany itself, the story is rather different.
In Luther’s home state of Saxony-Anhalt, after nearly a century of atheistic indoctrination, only 19% of the population professes belief in God. Yet even more tragic is the widespread unbelief in the west, under the auspices of a privileged but largely apostate Protestant Evangelical Church (EKD). A union of Lutheran and Reformed bodies, the EKD and the Roman Catholic Church claimed 30% of the population each by the end of 2008. Affiliation, however, may mean no more than having been baptized. These Landeskirchen (established churches) continue to receive tax money to fund their undermining of the Christian faith. In recent decades, there have been free (i.e., independent of the state) Lutheran bodies maintaining evangelical convictions, but Arminian Baptist and Pentecostal groups are much larger.
Across the nation, 45% say, “I believe there is a God,” while among the youth the percentage drops to 30%, and 34% are “unaffiliated.” According to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, 55% of the total population claim to be atheists, agnostics, or “non-religious.” Germany has always been the vanguard of intellectual, cultural, and religious trends on the continent. What happens in Germany, for good or ill, has repercussions for the whole of Europe.
During my brief time in Heidelberg, I was impressed with the small group of committed believers who are longing and praying for a new Reformation. Spearheading this event last week was the Free Reformed Church (Selbstündige Evangelisch-Reformierte Kirche) in Heidelberg with the Rev. Sebastian Heck. I joined North American colleagues Joel Beeke, Lyle Bierma, Jason Van Vleet, and Jon Payne in giving some papers on the catechism, but for me it was definitely more blessed to receive than to give.
Among other speakers was Dr. Victor d’Assonville, an astute Reformed theologian. He leads a new seminary that holds great promise as a center for sound training of the small but growing band of future ministers, evangelists, and teachers. Students come from Lutheran and Reformed backgrounds and I had the pleasure of getting to know some of them at the conference. Many were raised in East Germany, where atheism was the state ideology. I was deeply moved by their stories of coming to understand the evangelical faith against all odds (including their own churches) and the depth of their zeal, knowledge, and clarity.
In other travels, I’ve seen first-hand the remarkable blessing of God on his means of grace. There is a hunger for Reformation Christianity around the world. And yet the land of the Reformation is now largely pagan. There is a great need for prayers and financial support for small but zealously faithful ministry in Germany.
All good catechisms are rooted in scripture. If it's really good it will have more than one.
What if another disagrees on something like salvation by election?
Before someone disagrees to a catechism, they better have a good answer to the scriptures supporting it. I honestly know where someone is coming from when they say, "Well, that's a mystery..." to a doctrine. I could never understand Romans or the book of John. It didn't make sense. So that is what I often said when I couldn't reconcile a piece of scripture or these books. "I guess it's a mystery and I'll find out when I get to heaven."
Here's a secret from a relatively new Reformer. Reformers aren't arrogant although they might seem like it. They simply are reading the scriptures in their entirety. The problem is others are not and they don't want to reconcile the differences because it will affect their preconcieved notions.
Where I think people are on shakey ground is when they will argue with a clear piece of scripture with a, "Ya but....". They are not thinking about what the scripture is trying to teach them.
Isn’t it then ultimately a democratic system? Majority rules?
Correct me if I’m wrong here:
If there’s disagreement, they argue it out using scripture and reason/logic.
Yes?
No. Scripture rules.
If you must draw a parallel it is a republic.
In a nutshell, with some variation:
The congregation elects elders, who then oversee the local body. In the Presbyterian church this group of men is called a Session. They rule over the local body.
Members of the session represent the local body at higher courts, called synods or presbyteries.
Higher and higher up until they the highest court is met. In the PCA this is called the General Assembly. Each level keeps an eye on the doctrinal purity of the level below it.
If this is sounds somewhat familiar, the US constitution is loosely based on Presbyterian church government.
In the Congregational church system majority rules. They vote on everything. Most jumped the rail a long time ago.
Thanks.
Has there been a Presbyterian Church with this structure that has “jumped the rails”?
Also on:
>>>No. Scripture rules.
I’m still unclear on the catechism here. Is it accepted that catechism = right interpretation of scripture? Is is possible for someone to find an error in the catechism based on scripture?
Or is this essentially saying they no longer hold the same beliefs as those of churches who accept the catechism? I.e., they need to change where they belong.
Is there a specific example you can provide? You will find the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession uses only scripture. There isn't much to argue about. One could argue about the mode of baptism since the Westminster Confession holds to infant baptism and the London Baptist Confession holds to immersion. But they both have scriptural context for what they assert and if one were to honestly review history, it is a confusing doctrine (please see Augustine). So on this specific issue one has to follow their heart of what they believe the scripture is saying-not some magistrate telling you what you should believe.
Now let's look at a section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church-Article 3, Man's Freedom and Responsibility. Please note the references:
The problem Protestants have is that they don't read on know their confessions. If they did there would be much less arguing among Protestants.
The problem Catholics have is that they don't accept scripture to be the basis of their teaching. It doesn't matter what the scriptures state. What matters is what the church is teaching. If you think this is a little harsh then please note the catechism:
***Is it accepted that catechism = right interpretation of scripture?***
I answered that above, perhaps your Catholic paradigm is the barrier here.
Think of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechism as a summery of the faith, not an interpretation. (This goes for the Three Forms of Unity used by our Continental Reformed brothers and Sisters as well)
They form a protective sandbag wall around Scripture. Our friend Bob has to chip away at the Confessions to prove his point. It is conceivable that he may have a valid Biblical point that was missed by the Devines, and if that happens the confessions would be changes.
Theses documents aren’t comprehensive to cover all aspects of life. For example, the Muslim issue. I know that the Catholic Catechism addresses homosexuality. Ours doesn’t. We have position papers on that issue that are separate documents that address this and other social issues.
**Has there been a Presbyterian Church with this structure that has “jumped the rails”?**
Yes, the Presbyterian Church(USA).
It started in the 1800’s with undermining the Confession, then when that was out of the way, they did away with the nature of Scripture. They said it was a book about God written by man. We say it is a book about God inspired by God.
Once you do away with the authority of Scripture, you start having all sorts of problems, as seen in today’s headlines regarding the PC(USA).
>>>"You will find the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession uses only scripture. There isn't much to argue about."
Then again, what is the purpose. I know the idea of a summary, but there is not a meaning or interpretation or dogma/doctrine derived then what's the point, really?
I guess I'm not accepting the answer: it's only scripture. Scripture is short enough.
I think you know the obvious conclusion here: it doesn't work as a structure.
Of course you are correct there.
To get back to the confession/catechism and sola scriptura:
I believe the catechism/confession is a means to (try to) enforce a particular view or interpretation of scripture. The same goes for creeds. I think this is a common need. Few books of any depth cannot be interpreted in different ways, different meanings.
My original point was that the doctrine of sola scriptura is incomplete - there must be an agreed upon interpretation (via creed, confession..) to achieve a modicum of commonality of faith necessary for communion.
A. The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace (1 Cor. 10:16).
136 LG 11.
137 PO 5.
Protestants like to keep things simple. And, unlike Catholic catechisms, one can easily look up the reference on the Protestant catechism to see if they're being sold snake oil. Sure, Protestants can argue whether we should serve only wine or whether grape juice is permissible, but it doesn't change the purpose of the Lord's Supper nor the text which supports the meaning of it. This is not true of the Catholic catechism for which there is no context and vague references. I remember trying to look up the references of several Catholic catechisms only to give up.
Please keep in mind that most Protestants do not understand their catechism just like most Catholics don't understand theirs. Therein often lies the confusion.
I don’t agree with your statement there’s not much difference in interpretation.
There’s a great deal of difference between salvation by election and salvation by grace through faith. There’s quite a difference between real presence in Holy Eucarist and not.
And you also have Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals who claim the doctrine of sola scriptura.
If you mean there is a great deal of difference between:
2) believing God opens our eyes and we make a choice
...
4. Others are not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may experience some common operations of the Spirit, yet because they are not effectually drawn by the Father, they will not and cannot truly come to Christ and therefore cannot be saved. Much less can men who do not embrace the Christian religion be saved, however diligent they may be to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the requirements of the religion they profess.
There’s quite a difference between real presence in Holy Eucarist and not.
There is not anything in scripture that supports the Catholic Church many catechisms on the Eucharist. The references are vague or refers to other writers. There is a vast difference between Protestants not knowing their catechisms and believing erroneous doctrine verses Catholics who understand they are using non-biblical sources but don't care. This isn't any different then Mormons referring us to the Book of Mormons for doctrinal insight. Same thing.
And you also have Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals who claim the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Unitarians claim a lot of things. What they practice is something else. It's like Catholics who at one time believed scripture was God-breathed, inspired and set apart. Now Catholics believe that any Saint Joe or Fred can say pithy things on the same level as God. And they put it in a catechism just because someone said that it was at the same par as what God would say.
Big mistake.
Ok. I think this undermines your position on the other points.
I should have added that I appreciate your discussion and knowledge in posting.
That's most likely because you don't want to understand because your mind is closed.
The idea is quite simple, teach those things that are central from scripture and not the outlying traditions of the corruption in the church of its day. Luther was never against teaching the truths of Christian doctrine; Sola Scriptura never precluded correct teaching, a good catechism, or a confession. Sola Scriptura demands that your central "teaching" have a solid grounding in the New and Old Testaments where they can be seen.
That you can't see this obvious and simple point says more about your state of mind than anything else .
teach those things that are central from scripture
According to whom? Who decides this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.