How green is my Catechism.

[atpollard]

Try Vulgate - Douay-Rheims - Knox Bible side by side

I am a fan of the Vulgate. I read a translation of Jerome’s introductions to the Books and he impressed me.
(He would have made a good Baptist.)

 

[atpollard]

Wow, this is a VERY Catholic topic (response wise) for the OP and ”General Theology” forum.

Setting aside the reality that I favor BIBLES (plural) over Catechisms, let’s take a shot at answering the question about MY CATECHISM (since I have two or three).

I like the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) as much for what it does not teach as what it does teach. It deals with the important truths without getting too far into the minutiae of Reformed Theology and “T.U.L.I.P.“ debates.

As a Baptist, I like the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message for presenting the Baptist truths that are important to me AS A BAPTIST and distinguish my faith from that of the denominations. [It is a Baptist distinctive thing that EVERY local church is fully autonomous and answers directly to the Head of the Church (Jesus Christ) rather than any human institution.]. It also affirms another Baptist Distinctive that our “local congregations” are composed of both Particular (TULIP) Baptists and General (free will) Baptists worshiping together. Just as the Church (congregation) answers directly to Jesus and not to any human authority, so, too, each member answers to Jesus and the Bible and not to any human authority. Thus we can agree to disagree and worship together. [Unless the church splits over the color of the new carpet … after all, people are still people and I don’t want to paint Baptists as sinless saints of God that get everything right.]

When it becomes necessary to roll up your sleeves and get dirty [you know, dealing with the HARD questions] … I turn to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. This is like the Westminster Confession of Faith, but stripped of all the Reformed concepts that violate the Baptist Distinctives. It is a Particular Baptist Confession, so it is more clear on the TULIP issues than the modern “Baptist Faith and Message”.

These are my CATECHISMS.

 

[Fervent]

I apologize if I gave the impression that is what I thought. However, if a Formal Equivalence translation and Dynamic Equivalence translation separate by 200 years and from different denominations agree on the message in a paragraph … that probably IS the message in the original Greek (that I cannot read).

I was more referring to relying on interlinears as a reference when there are divergent translations. Most disagreements on key issues turn on a handful of passages, so the passages that are broadly agreed upon are less significant to this context. An example of this is disputes over atonement often come down to arguments about a couple of verses most prominently 1 John 4:10, which in turn become disputes over how "hilasmos' should be interpreted. These kinds of discussions, though, tend to lose sight of the text but would be what you end up with looking at interlinears without at least enough language training to do a proper word study. Returning to the "hilasmos" example, a lot of times such debates have inherent theological baggage in the English even when there is agreement on the proper word to use. What i mean by this in this example is "propitiation" and "expiation" are often put forward as the appropriate terms, but neither of these terms in English remains entirely appropriate because of additional implications that they have gained through the debate beyond the original "to atone for" or "to make favorable" that would have characterized their original meanings. So resorting to an interlinear, especially if its lexicon is not robust, may end up adding additional hidden biases rather than eliminating them.

 

[Valletta]

What is the problem with just using the Bible?

Such a belief became popular well over a thousand years after the beginning of Christianity.

 

[bling]

Such a belief became popular well over a thousand years after the beginning of Christianity.

We have very little information world wide what Christians were doing in small groups over a thousand years ago.
Going away from scripture and using other sources is not and does not work, while just using the Bible is doing great in places like communist China.

 

[Fervent]

Such a belief became popular well over a thousand years after the beginning of Christianity.

That's not really true, since Iranaeus' defense against the gnostics when properly understood was essentially a statement of the sole authority of the Scripture. It is only through an ahistorical reading colored by later EO and Catholic theologizing of "Apostolic tradition" in his writings that it appears otherwise.

 

[atpollard]

An example of this is disputes over atonement often come down to arguments about a couple of verses most prominently 1 John 4:10, which in turn become disputes over how "hilasmos' should be interpreted. These kinds of discussions, though, tend to lose sight of the text but would be what you end up with looking at interlinears without at least enough language training to do a proper word study. Returning to the "hilasmos" example, a lot of times such debates have inherent theological baggage in the English even when there is agreement on the proper word to use.

I can agree with that … but the Interlinear and Thayer’s Lexicon will typically provide enough “breath” of potential meaning to make clear WHY the various translations diverge (even if I lack the in-depth technical skill to parse which translation might be “more correct”.). I find it useful to at least understand WHY these different experts disagree and that neither is completely without merit.

Discussions on “ATONEMENT” offer an excellent example. Irrespective of TRUTH, our opinions will not change God’s reality. Jesus atoned for whom He atoned, and He atoned how He atoned. We are powerless to add or subtract from the WORK OF GOD by our debate, understanding or lack of understanding. Therefore, understanding the various man-centric positions and acknowledging our powerlessness over God’s reality is not a bad position to come to rest on for a divisive issue. No one was damned for the fine points of their catechism. We have more fundamental issues that God deals with in our hearts.

Romans 10:9-10 is always my “go to“ verse when I start to overthink this salvation thing. [John 3:14-21 is my “go to” passage when I want to meditate on just how complex this whole thing that God has done with Jesus really is … starting with the lessons of Moses and the bronze snake (Numbers 21:4-9)].

 

[Fervent]

I can agree with that … but the Interlinear and Thayer’s Lexicon will typically provide enough “breath” of potential meaning to make clear WHY the various translations diverge (even if I lack the in-depth technical skill to parse which translation might be “more correct”.). I find it useful to at least understand WHY these different experts disagree and that neither is completely without merit.

Discussions on “ATONEMENT” offer an excellent example. Irrespective of TRUTH, our opinions will not change God’s reality. Jesus atoned for whom He atoned, and He atoned how He atoned. We are powerless to add or subtract from the WORK OF GOD by our debate, understanding or lack of understanding. Therefore, understanding the various man-centric positions and acknowledging our powerlessness over God’s reality is not a bad position to come to rest on for a divisive issue. No one was damned for the fine points of their catechism. We have more fundamental issues that God deals with in our hearts.

Romans 10:9-10 is always my “go to“ verse when I start to overthink this salvation thing. [John 3:14-21 is my “go to” passage when I want to meditate on just how complex this whole thing that God has done with Jesus really is … starting with the lessons of Moses and the bronze snake (Numbers 21:4-9)].

Thayer's is a good one, and your diligence in understanding is certainly admirable. Your efforts still show the lack of truth to "Bible alone" type of thinking, though, since you inevitably introduce some tradition into your research since the lexicons are reflective of the traditions that produced them. Biblical interpretation is not a solitary effort and involves the entire faith community. which necessarily involves acceptance of some historical dogma in the form of accepted interpretations.

I view discussions of atonement more a challenge for evangelism than a matter of soteriology, since they often are deaf to the cultural issues that actually serve as hurdles to acceptance of the gospel. For example, the heavy emphasis laid on penal substitution often leads to the message seeming irrelevant to cultures that do not have a pessimistic view of human nature that makes them agreeable to the inherent sinfulness of man.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Going away from scripture and using other sources is not and does not work, while just using the Bible is doing great in places like communist China.

Well, all of the ancient churches have extra biblical sources from which doctrine is shaped and they've been doing well for 2,000 years; so as much as you wish it didn't work the truth is that it does work.

 

[bling]

Well, all of the ancient churches have extra biblical sources from which doctrine is shaped and they've been doing well for 2,000 years; so as much as you wish it didn't work the truth is that it does work.

“Doing well” is a very relative term.

I really have a problem with all Western denominations.

What I see happening in Iran, China and North Korea (when we could seek a peek) is the way I see Jesus teaching us to spread the Gospel. You need small house churches, with the highest position being unpaid house church leader and all the members involved in spread he good news. The house church divides when it gets crowded (20-40) people, someone in the group has to take on the leadership position.

What scripture is guiding us to is you have a small group 6-12 and you allow the Holy Spirit to mentor them through you with the help of the Bible, so if every year on average if you can have one in the group become like you are (which is like Christ) they will go out having their own group of 6-12 with the Spirit mentoring them. Doing this will result in no people available on earth to be in small groups in 36 years, all 10 billion people are in small groups.

Denominations are not following Christ’s method, but other are coming close.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

“Doing well” is a very relative term.

I really have a problem with all Western denominations.

This is you having a problem, it is not an objective problem that the ancient churches have. God has preserved them for two thousand years, that is undeniable because they would not exist if God did not preserve them. As the holy scripture says of God and his creation, "For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made: for thou didst not appoint, or make any thing hating it. And how could any thing endure, if thou wouldst not? or be preserved, if not called by thee? But thou sparest all: because they are thine, O Lord, who lovest souls." Wisdom 11:25-27 DRB

 

[prodromos]

The topic is not a question. It's an exclamation. My catechism is very green indeed.

But what do I mean by green?

Well, on a superficial level, my catechism's cover is green leatherette, slightly firm but soft to the touch. So that's one way in which it is green.
And, it is green like an oasis in a dry land. By which I mean it is a place of theological rest and comfort in a surrounding landscape of dry and barren theology.
Also, it is green like a traffic light telling me to go! To go forth and speak of Jesus Christ, bible in hand, catechism on my phone, it is a missionary document.

It's also the same height and width as my New Catholic Bible, which is the bible I use for the liturgy, which is a useful feature. The same is true of my Sunday missal, and my weekday missal, and also true of the Divine office, and morning & evening prayer. Somebody planned this, despite coming from several publishers.

It is, of course, also the mainstay of Catholic teaching in Catechumen classes and plays a significant role in many a Catholic's life and prayers.

Mine looks like this:

It isn't as big as that photo suggests. It's about 4" wide and 6" tall. It cost $10 when I bought it, but I've seen copies on ebay for $50 and more, so some people are making a profit out of it.

Its content is available online without charge here -> Catechism of the Catholic Church


So, why is this post here, in General Theology? Well, mainly to encourage folk here to share what they use as a theological help in their bible reading and in evangelism. What book or books shape your beliefs and practises?

Our catechism is very green in as much as we don't really have one, so no trees have been killed in producing our catechism
The primary catechism of the Orthodox Church is the Liturgy. We are taught the faith through the the reading of the Scriptures and the hymns and prayers of the divine services.

 

[bling]

This is you having a problem, it is not an objective problem that the ancient churches have. God has preserved them for two thousand years, that is undeniable because they would not exist if God did not preserve them. As the holy scripture says of God and his creation, "For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made: for thou didst not appoint, or make any thing hating it. And how could any thing endure, if thou wouldst not? or be preserved, if not called by thee? But thou sparest all: because they are thine, O Lord, who lovest souls." Wisdom 11:25-27 DRB

Just because: "The poor will be with us always", there will always be "wars and roamers of wars" do not mean God desires there existence. This messed up world is also the very best world for willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective. What exist and continues to exist is to help humans fulfill their objective, but that does not mean God likes what is going on.

 

[Fervent]

“Doing well” is a very relative term.

I really have a problem with all Western denominations.

What I see happening in Iran, China and North Korea (when we could seek a peek) is the way I see Jesus teaching us to spread the Gospel. You need small house churches, with the highest position being unpaid house church leader and all the members involved in spread he good news. The house church divides when it gets crowded (20-40) people, someone in the group has to take on the leadership position.

What scripture is guiding us to is you have a small group 6-12 and you allow the Holy Spirit to mentor them through you with the help of the Bible, so if every year on average if you can have one in the group become like you are (which is like Christ) they will go out having their own group of 6-12 with the Spirit mentoring them. Doing this will result in no people available on earth to be in small groups in 36 years, all 10 billion people are in small groups.

Denominations are not following Christ’s method, but other are coming close.

I seem to recall Jesus feeding a few more than 6-12 people a couple of times.

 

[prodromos]

I seem to recall Jesus feeding a few more than 6-12 people a couple of times.

There were at least another 70 disciples following Jesus (Luke 10)

 

[bling]

I seem to recall Jesus feeding a few more than 6-12 people a couple of times.

How well did that "work" in make disciples?
Does feeding cause lots of people to seek those loaves and fishes and not take to heart the message?

 

[Fervent]

How well did that "work" in make disciples?
Does feeding cause lots of people to seek those loaves and fishes and not take to heart the message?

Seems to have made more than 6-12 at a time, considering how many were with Jesus the night of His arrest. It's true that there were meetings of house churches, but the assemblies were of every Christian in the city when the Lord's Supper was taken and in some of the cities they were large gatherings.

 

[The Liturgist]

Such a belief became popular well over a thousand years after the beginning of Christianity.

More like 1900 years. I am not even close to joking about this: the first ostensibly Nuda Scriptura denomination that I can think of is the Stone-Campbell Movement of the 19th century, except in a bizarre twist even they have distinct traditions, for example, weekly celebration of the Eucharist, which was unusual for Protestants in the 19th century, and the Christian Church / Disciples of Christ even has written liturgies.

Oh, and here’s a fun fact: the entire genre of Catechisms in the Question and Answer format was basically invented by Martin Luther. The Early Church did not use them, but rather had numerous other books of liturgy, church order, and dogmatic theology, and people joining the Early Church became Catechumens, and were prepared for Baptism through a formal tutelary process not greatly dissimilar to Sunday School. By Holy Week those ready to be baptized became Energumens, and they were baptized on Holy Saturday at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy while a series of Old Testament lessons that directly predict the passion and resurrection of Christ our true God were read.

This remains the practice to a large extent in the Orthodox and Assyrian churches, except in the case of certain similar churches where one can convert through profession of faith; likewise, in the case of the Catholic Church, an Orthodox or Assyrian Christian is usually received directly into the Eastern Catholic Church that most closely corresponds to their prior church. So a Russian Orthodox would become a Russian Greek Catholic, a Ukrainian Orthodox a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, a Syriac Orthodox would become a Syriac Catholic, a Coptic Orthodox would become a Coptic Catholic, and a member of the Assyrian or Ancient Church of the East would become a Chaldean Catholic.

 

[bling]

Seems to have made more than 6-12 at a time, considering how many were with Jesus the night of His arrest. It's true that there were meetings of house churches, but the assemblies were of every Christian in the city when the Lord's Supper was taken and in some of the cities they were large gatherings.

Where are you finding: "but the assemblies were of every Christian in the city when the Lord's Supper was taken and in some of the cities they were large gatherings."

 

[atpollard]

More like 1900 years. I am not even close to joking about this: the first ostensibly Nuda Scriptura denomination that I can think of is the Stone-Campbell Movement of the 19th century, except in a bizarre twist even they have distinct traditions, for example, weekly celebration of the Eucharist, which was unusual for Protestants in the 19th century, and the Christian Church / Disciples of Christ even has written liturgies.

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith​

Chapter 1 – The Holy Scriptures​

1. The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible standard of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.1 The light of nature and the works of creation and providence so clearly demonstrate the goodness, wisdom, and power of God that people are left without excuse; however, these demonstrations are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and his will that is necessary for salvation.2 Therefore, the Lord was pleased at different times and in various ways to reveal himself and to declare his will to his church.3 To preserve and propagate the truth better and to establish and comfort the church with greater certainty against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world, the Lord put this revelation completely in writing. Therefore, the Holy Scriptures are absolutely necessary, because God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people have now ceased.4​

1 2 Timothy 3:15–17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20. 2 Romans 1:19–21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalm 19:1–3. 3 Hebrews 1:1. 4 Proverbs 22:19–21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19, 20.​

​

2. The Holy Scriptures, or the Word of God written, consist of all the books of the Old and New Testaments. These are:​

THE OLD TESTAMENT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.​

THE NEW TESTAMENT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.​

All of these are given by the inspiration of God to be the standard of faith and life.5​

5 2 Timothy 3:16.​

​

3. The books commonly called the Apocrypha were not given by divine inspiration and so are not part of the canon or standard of the Scriptures. Therefore, they have no authority for the church of God and are not to be recognized or used in any way different from other human writings.6​

6 Luke 24:27, 44; Romans 3:2.​

​

4. The authority of the Holy Scriptures obligates belief in them. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church but on God the author alone, who is truth itself. Therefore, the Scriptures are to be received because they are the Word of God.7​

7 2 Peter 1:19–21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9.​

​

5. The testimony of the church of God may stir and persuade us to adopt a high and reverent respect for the Holy Scriptures. Moreover, the heavenliness of the contents, the power of the system of truth, the majesty of the style, the harmony of all the parts, the central focus on giving all glory to God, the full revelation of the only way of salvation, and many other incomparable qualities and complete perfections, all provide abundant evidence that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Even so, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Scriptures comes from the internal work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.8​

8 John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10–12; 1 John 2:20, 27.​

​

6. The whole counsel of God concerning everything essential for his own glory and man’s salvation, faith, and life is either explicitly stated or by necessary inference contained in the Holy Scriptures. Nothing is ever to be added to the Scriptures, either by new revelation of the Spirit or by human traditions.9
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the inward illumination of the Spirit of God is necessary for a saving understanding of what is revealed in the Word.10 We recognize that some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church are common to human actions and organizations and are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian wisdom, following the general rules of the Word, which must always be observed.11​

9 2 Timothy 3:15–17; Galatians 1:8,9. 10 John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9–12. 11 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26, 40.​

​

7. Some things in Scripture are clearer than others, and some people understand the teachings more clearly than others.12 However, the things that must be known, believed, and obeyed for salvation are so clearly set forth and explained in one part of Scripture or another that both the educated and uneducated may achieve a sufficient understanding of them by properly using ordinary measures.13​

12 2 Peter 3:16. 13 Psalm 19:7; Psalm 119:130.​

​

8. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the native language of the ancient people of God.14 The New Testament was written in Greek, which at the time it was written was most widely known to the nations. These Testaments were inspired directly by God and by his unique care and providence were kept pure down through the ages. They are therefore true and authoritative a, so that in all religious controversies the church must make their ultimate appeal to them.15 All God’s people have a right to and a claim on the Scriptures and are commanded in the fear of God to read16 and search them.17 Not all of God’s people know these original languages, so the Scriptures are to be translated into the common language of every nation to which they come.18 In this way the Word of God may dwell richly in all, so that they may worship him in an acceptable manner and through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19​

a authentical
14 Romans 3:2. 15 Isaiah 8:20. 16 Acts 15:15. 17 John 5:39. 18 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28. 19 Colossians 3:16.​

​

9. The infallible rule for interpreting Scripture is the Scripture itself. Therefore, when there is a question about the true and full meaning c of any part of Scripture (and each passage has only one meaning, not many), it must be understood in light of other passages that speak more clearly.20​

c sense
20 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16.​

​

10. The supreme judge for deciding all religious controversies and for evaluating all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, human teachings, and individual interpretations d, and in whose judgment we are to rest, is nothing but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit. In this Scripture our faith finds its final word.21​

d private spirits
21 Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23.​

[Sounds like Sola Scriptura to me ... and before 1900]