Remembering the Heidelberg Catechism
Four hundred and fifty years ago on January 19th, the Heidelberg Catechism was finished. What is the Heidelberg Catechism? And what does it have to do with Free Will Baptists, you might ask?
What Is the Heidelberg Catechism?
Due to the introduction of Protestantism in the 15th century, strong tensions developed between the Lutherans and Calvinists. To end the religious disputes in his region, Frederick III of Simmern (Elector Palantine) commissioned two men the task of formulating an adequate catechism. These men were Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus. They leaned heavily on existing catechetical literature and produced a catechism that satisfied a wide variety of reformed theologians [1].
The Heidelberg Catechism is separated into three main sections: humanity’s misery (or sin); God’s redemption; and, finally, humanity’s gratitude. Structured in a question-and-answer format, Lyle Bierma reminds us that Frederick had at least “three objectives” for the Heidelberg Catechism. It would “serve (1) as a catechetical tool for teaching the children, (2) as a preaching guide for instructing the common people in the churches, and (3) as a form for confessional unity among several Protestant factions” [2]. These objectives easily transcend to today.
What Does the Heidelberg Catechism Have to Do with Free Will Baptists?
Jacobus Arminius, who is the father of Free Will Baptist/Reformed Arminian theology, subscribed to this very catechism as a clear statement of faith, clearly showing its importance to us today. He wrote:
I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with as the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent (emphasis added) [3].
Others have commented on it similarly. Kevin DeYoung points out:
[The] Heidelberg Catechism is the most personal and most devotional of the Reformation era creeds and confessions. The theme is ‘comfort’ and the emphasis is on how the person and work of Jesus Christ benefits the believer. The pattern of questions and answers make the catechism accessible, while the conspicuous use of ‘I,’ ‘me,’ ‘my,’ and ‘mine’ make the theology warm and practical [4].
We at HSF would like to encourage you, on the milestone of this historic statement of faith, to take a look at the Heidelberg Catechism and garner from its transcendent focus on Scripture. You may read this timeless confession of faith here.
_______________________________________
[1] James & John McClintock Strong, “Brief History of the Heidelberg Catechism,” Cyclopedia Of Biblical, Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature; cited in “Brief History of the Heidelberg Catechism,” http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/heidelberg.html; accessed on January 19, 2013.
[2] Lyle Bierma, “The Purpose and Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism,” An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005); 51; as quoted by Kent Hendricks, “Celebrating the 450th Birthday of the Heidelberg Catechism”, Logostalk: The Logos Bible Software Blog, http://blog.logos.com/2013/01/celebrate-the-450th-birthday-of-the-heidelberg-catechism/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=logostalk (accessed January 19, 2013).
[3] Jacobus Arminius; cited in Carl Bangs, “Arminius As a Reformed Theologian,” The Heritage of John Calvin, ed. John H Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 216; cited in Pinson, “Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up?,” 123.
[4] Kevin DeYoung, “Five Reasons to Read the Heidelberg Catechism This Year” The Gospel Coalition, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2013/01/18/five-reasons-to-read-the-heidelberg-catechism-this-year/ (accessed January 19, 2013).
_______________________________________
For Further Reading:
Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton: Crossway Publishing 2012).
Kevin DeYoung, The Good News We Almost Forgot: Rediscovering the Gospel in a 16th Century Catechism (Chicago: Moody Publishers 2010).
January 21, 2013
This reveals a fundamental error in classical Protestantism: taking the Fall/Man’s sin as its theological starting point rather than the Mystery of Creation which is the biblical starting point.
That has had the unfortunate affect of producing too many people who believe more deeply in the mystery of iniquity than the Mystery of Redemption.
Obviously, there is something “not quite right” with the world in general and human existence in particular–imperfection, incompleteness, sin; but to focus on the negative at the expense or exclusion of the positive is not only heretical, it is unhealthy.
“Religious creeds encourage some of the craziest kinds of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors and favor severe manifestations of neurosis, borderline personality states, and sometimes even psychosis.” – Albert Ellis
“The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.” –Friedrich Nietzsche
“The way you see people is the way you treat them. And the way you treat them is what they become.” –Johann Von Goethe
The Latin/Western Churches and the Orthodox Churches of the East have distinctly different perspectives on the doctrine of original sin:
In Orthodox theology, the two words “image” and “likeness” are not used interchangeably as they are for Roman Catholics and Protestants. For Orthodox Christians, “image” denotes the powers and faculties with which every human being is endowed by God from the first moment of his existence. “Likeness” is the assimilation, the growth process to God through virtue* and grace. We call this growth process “theosis.” For Western theology, man was created perfect in the absolute sense and therefore, when he fell, he fell completely away from God. For Orthodox theology, man was created perfect in the potential sense.–Fr. George Nicozisin
http://www.orthocuban.com/2010/02/roman-catholic-and-orthodox-differences-on-original-sin/
January 22, 2013
Carol, as always, we deeply appreciate your readership. It is always helpful to have readers engage our posts in thoughtful and analytical ways. For that, we thank you.
First and foremost, I would largely agree with you that taking sin/depravity as a starting point in a theological system can be flawed, and certainly we would agree that the workers of the Reformation did not get everything right. As you put it, it may be very helpful to begin with the imago dei in a theological system; certainly that is where Scripture begins. I know many contemporary theologians begin with the doctrine of Scripture and Revelation (e.g. Grudem, Erickson, Barackman) and many historical creeds and confessions begin with Trinitarian thoughts (e.g. The Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Ausburg Confession, The Thirty-Nine Articles). Nevertheless, one must start somewhere, and the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism found it beneficial to begin with man’s depravity.
You might find it helpful to read another one of our essay’s by Matthew Bracey and his treatment of theosis found under the first header of that post: http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=1621
Again, thank you for your comments and your continued readership.