Protestant Statements of Faith and Catechisms: Luther's Small Catechism

[ATraveller]

Who wants a challenge?
Where would Catholics disagree with them? To save time, obvious topics on Faith/Works, the Bible and Papacy should not be mentioned. It’s pointless to point out the obvious.
It could help us to understand some of the other differences in theology that keep us separate that may not be so obvious.
I plan on sharing links a number of them over time (I haven’t decided) but I’m starting with the Westminster Confession of Faith:
http://www.opc.org/wcf.html
With Scriptural footnotes (via @ltwin)

The Westminster Confession of Faith - Ligonier Ministries

If I think there’s not much to discuss on one (inactivity for 12 days after the last reply) I’ll move on and share a link to a different statement, creed or catechism.

 

[Kei]

Their cannon. They do not give reasons why the apocrypha are not inspired, despite saying the inspiration of Scripture relies on God and not any Church. The obvious question is where did they get their table of contents for the Bible?

Or does that count as obvious?

 

[ATraveller]

That’s a stumper.
I think it counts as ‘obvious’ because it’s been discussed elsewhere before and relatively frequently.
I’ve seen it talked about not too long ago.
But since you asked, Tobit and etc. aren’t in our Bibles because they weren’t used in Judaism but still considered useful to read but not good enough for doctrine.

 

[Kei]

It seems to say that the Old Covenant was not given to Moses, except in the Ten Commandments and extra ceremonial laws. But that Adam was given the Old Covenant, and it conflates the covenant with morality in general. It’s an odd way of putting it.

I think the real reason this would be challenging is that obvious differences are usually the main ones…

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I would love the challenge but don’t know anything about Protestant statements. I will enjoy following this.

 

[ltwin]

It seems to say that the Old Covenant was not given to Moses, except in the Ten Commandments and extra ceremonial laws. But that Adam was given the Old Covenant . . .

You’re reading Chapter 7 “Of God’s Covenant With Man” right? This is a summary of Reformed covenant theology. Paragraph 2 explains the “covenant of works”:

“2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”

The “covenant of works” is not the same thing as the Old Covenant. The “covenant of grace” is explained in paragraph 3:

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

The Old Covenant and the New Covenant are both included in the “covenant of grace”, but it was/is administered differently in each. Under the Old Covenant (aka “the law”), the covenant of grace was administered by:

“by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.”

Under the New Covenant (aka “the gospel”), the covenant of grace is administered by:

“the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament.”

Paragraph 6 concludes: “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”

To sum up: There are 2 covenants–the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Within the covenant of grace, there are 2 dispensations–the time of the Law (Old Testament) and the time of the Gospel (New Testament).

 

[steve-b]

Who wants a challenge?
Where would Catholics disagree with them? … I’m starting with the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Confession of Faith: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

From that link

of the holy scripture

[snip for space]

Holy Scripture

1. it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, … which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; …

My comments

This confession of Westminster, doesn’t mention it received the scriptures from the only Church Our Lord Established on Peter and those in union with Peter. The Catholic Church.

[snip for space]
Holy Scripture
2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:

my comments
books they listed are minus 7 OT scriptural books. A decision made by Luther.
so for Westminster to write
"All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life". is disingenuous.

[snip for space]
Holy Scripture
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.

My comments
God did NOT give Protestants the authority to even say this or do this?

Holy Scripture
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

my comment:
A truly hypocritical statement given what they did.

Holy scripture
5.We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

my comment

Given what they did, There’s way too much to say here.

Sorry ATraveller, others will have to comment on the rest.

 

[Kei]

Thanks. Thats quite an odd way of looking at things and not at all what Id get reading the Bible.
Like, the Old Law was one with “works of the Law” to use Paul’s term, and one would think that would make it one of grace and works as opposed to the dichotomy proposed.
Of course there’s probably a bunch of changes in use of terms.

 

[steve-b]

That’s a stumper.
I think it counts as ‘obvious’ because it’s been discussed elsewhere before and relatively frequently.
I’ve seen it talked about not too long ago.
But since you asked, Tobit and etc. aren’t in our Bibles because they weren’t used in Judaism but still considered useful to read but not good enough for doctrine.

The Jews in the Diaspora spoke Greek. They were far bigger in numbers than Jews of Jerusalem. The LXX, The Septuagint, in Greek, had those 7 books. The Septuagint is the OT the Church accepted. OT quotes in the NT came from the LXX

Also Akins

 

[ltwin]

Thanks. Thats quite an odd way of looking at things and not at all what Id get reading the Bible.

Like, the Old Law was one with “works of the Law” to use Paul’s term, and one would think that would make it one of grace and works as opposed to the dichotomy proposed.

There have been people under both the Old and New covenants who pursued righteousness through “works of the law” but the Old Covenant itself, rightly understood, was still a covenant of grace. Romans 4 makes this clear:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness . . . 9 For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

This is why the Westminster Confession describes those faithful who lived under the Old Covenant as having “full remission of sins, and eternal salvation” . . . because the benefits of Christ’s atonement were being applied both backward and forward to all those who, like Abraham, believed in faith.

 

[GladTidings]

Chapter 15, number 6. How did the people who wrote this determine all you have to do is pray directly to God and your sins will be forgiven? How do you know they have been forgiven? Is that what Jesus said to do?

 

[Kei]

They had faith in their works…for instance, God asked for the sacrifice of animals. It was the will, the faith of the believers, that was pleasing. You can’t replace a good animal. And for those poorer, you could give up grain, etc.
Hence for Abraham, it was his faith and loyalty to be circumcised rather than the circumcision…the faith of moving to sacrifice Isaac over actually sacrificing him.

 

[GladTidings]

Chapter 12, number one. Adoption? Not sure what that means. Is it a way of trying to reassure people that their loved ones who died, after living a sinful life, will still have a shot at glory?

 

[GladTidings]

Chapter 32, number 1. “…being then made perfect in holiness…”, sounds dangerously like purgatory. Then the last sentence refutes it.

 

[GladTidings]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is chock full of scripture to back up the paragraphs. For a Bible-only church, where is the Bible to back up the statements? I see a lot of flowery language, but that’s it.

 

[ltwin]

They had faith in their works

I would say they had faith in God so they followed his instructions. It was not faith in the circumcision or the sacrifices themselves. It was faith in God that he would keep his promises.

Hence for Abraham, it was his faith and loyalty to be circumcised rather than the circumcision…the faith of moving to sacrifice Isaac over actually sacrificing him.

The point is that in both the Old and New Testaments, God provides everything needed for salvation. For Abraham, God provided the sacrifice (Genesis 22:8). The sacrifice for both those under the Old Covenant and New was Jesus, chosen before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20).

God did not save Abraham by a covenant of works–since Abraham would not have been able to keep it anyway–Abraham and all those who followed him who were saved were saved by grace.

Even the sacrificial system and other elements of the Mosaic law under which the Old Covenant was administered was not in itself what dispensed God’s grace. The Israelites were reminded time and time again that empty ritual and hypocritical piety was not what God wanted. Isaiah 1 is illustrative of this prophetic impulse:

11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats.

12 “When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.

The point is Abraham, Moses, etc. were not saved by a “covenant of works” but by a covenant of grace, which was dispensed in a different way in the time of the law than it is now under the gospel. However, both systems rightly understood were the covenant of grace.

 

[ltwin]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is chock full of scripture to back up the paragraphs. For a Bible-only church, where is the Bible to back up the statements? I see a lot of flowery language, but that’s it.

This is unfair. This is one electronic version of the Westminster Confession (which was written in 1646) that was produced without Scriptural references. The original Confession does indeed cite Scripture. See for example the version published by S. W. Carruthers in 1937. To illustrate, the first paragraph of Chapter 2 Of God, and of the Holy Trinity:

I. There is but one only,(a) living, and true Godb) who is infinite in being and perfection,(c) a most pure spirit,(d) invisible,(e) without body, parts,(f) or passions,(g) immutable,(h) immense,(i) eternal,(k) incomprehensible,(l) almighty,(m) most wise, most holy,(o) most free,(p) most absolute,(q) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,(r) for His own glory;(s) most loving,(t) gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;(u) the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;(w) and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments,(x) hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.(z)

(a) Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6.
(b) I Thess. 1:9; Jer. 10:10.
(c) Job 11:7, 8, 9; Job 26:14.
(d) John 4:24.
(e) I Tim. 1:17.
(f) Deut. 4:15, 16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39.
(g) Acts 14:11, 15.
(h) James 1:17; Mal. 3:6.
(i) I Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24.
(k) Ps. 90:2; I Tim. 1:17.
(l) Ps. 145:3.
(m) Gen. 17:1; Rev. 4:8.
Rom. 16:27.
(o) Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8.
(p) Ps. 115:3.
(q) Exod. 3:14.
(r) Eph. 1:11.
(s) Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36.
(t) I John 4:8, 16.
(u) Exod. 34:6, 7.
(w) Heb. 11:6.
(x) Neh. 9:32, 33.
Ps. 5:5, 6.
(z) Nah. 1:2, 3; Exod. 34:7.

 

[ltwin]

Chapter 12, number one. Adoption? Not sure what that means. Is it a way of trying to reassure people that their loved ones who died, after living a sinful life, will still have a shot at glory?

Romans 8:15 “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’”
Ephesians 1:5, “In love [God] predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ.”

Adoption is a term referring to our identities as sons and daughters of God through Christ. It is part of what is called the ordo salutis (order of salvation). Adoption occurs simultaneously with justification. For the Reformed, the order of salvation involves the following steps or phases (many of them happening at the same time):

• Predestination
• Election
• Calling
• Regeneration
• Faith
• Repentance
• Justification
• Adoption
• Sanctification
• Perseverance
• Glorification (in heaven)

For comparison, the Roman Catholic ordo salutis for an adult person according to Jimmy Akin would be something like this:

• God’s initiative of grace enabling an individual to respond to his call.
• Conversion (faith and repentance)
• Baptism
• Regeneration/Justification/Sanctification
• Glorification in heaven

 

[GladTidings]

Duly noted.

 

[ajfrab]

This jumped out at me from Chapter 3:

1. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
2. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

The chapter goes on to say only the elect (those predestined) are redeemed by Christ. This chapter reads that our salvation or condemnation is determined beforehand, and therefore you do not have a choice or free will in the matter.