Posted on 07/25/2013 10:44:56 AM PDT by Gamecock
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.
Theres 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.