what does the Talmud have to say about Presbyterianism?

There is a statement within the Talmud that says, “It is not enough to simply repeat the tradition, but the student must also understand it as well.” This being said, what then is the value of learning something like the Westminster shorter catechism? Aside from it being a requirement for students here at Reformed Theological Seminary, I would suggest that the shorter catechism is a ready-made discipleship curriculum, which provides a basic framework for understanding God and how people are to respond to him. This is true because the catechism provides the student with a basic summary of the twofold knowledge of God (i.e. God the Creator, God the Redeemer), which is taught in the Scriptures. In addition, it requires the students to memorize in full the 10 Commandments and the Lord's prayer, while providing a basic explanation of each portion of Scripture.

Now, I realize that there are many objections to the continued use of catechism, however, I would suggest that many of these objections either are outright agreements to the theological content of the catechism or simply fail to appreciate the value of catechism as a form of education that initiates one's understanding of Christianity not terminates. I think many people tend to object to catechism because they believe that it stagnates and future theological understanding or apprehension, however this is certainly not the case for two reasons.

First, the Catechism does not claim for itself absolute authority. The authority of the catechism is derived from Scripture. The catechism functions as a bullet point framework for understanding the teachings of Scripture. , it does not pretend to provide final answers for every interpretive problem found within the Scriptures themselves. At times, the catechism is room for discussion and ambiguity, which allows freedom to discuss theological matters outside of the catechism itself (e.g. question 9 states that God created all things "in the space of six days" what does that mean? Does the catechism authoritatively claim a literal six day creationism?) This means any student of the catechism does not rely on the catechism to answer every one of his questions because (1) the catechism itself teaches that the Scripture itself is the only rule to direct any Christian how to enjoy and glorify God, (2) the catechism itself does not attempt provide clarity on every one of its answers.

It also does not claim to be exhaustive. That is, it does not intend to be a full encyclopedia of theological knowledge. There are many theological areas which remain outside of the scope of the catechism. This means that the student will leave his time with the catechism with many more questions than when he first began. The catechism initiates the student into the subject matter of the Bible, which in turn further generates more questions about the Scriptures, which in turn encourages any "graduate" of the catechism to more closely engage the Scriptures themselves. This then becomes the testing grounds for what the student has learned from catechism. This means that the student can then test the accuracy of the catechism against his reading of Scripture.

The bottom line is I believe many people object to the continued use of catechism because they assume that the goal of such learning is simply rote memorization of 107 questions. There are several assumptions behind this objection, which simply failed to understand the function and limits of the catechism. I have argued that the catechism does not claim absolute authority within the church community, rather functions as a framework for understanding the teachings of Scripture (i.e. knowledge of God (questions 1 -- 38) and how we respond to him (39 -- 107). I have contended that the goal of this framework initiates an understanding of the Scripture, which generates questions about the Scriptures itself and encourages further engagement with the Scriptures. This is true because the form of each answer on the catechism is simply a summary or thesis statement concerning doctrine, which does not substantiate itself within the catechism, rather it encourages the student to provide evidence for the claims that it makes. If it is true that even a student of tradition should not simply repeat the tradition itself without first understanding it, then it is equally true that the one whom rejects the tradition must also understand the tradition before he rejects it.