A Happy Birthday for the Heidelberg Catechism

Out of The Horse's Mouth ^ | Jul.25, 2013 | Michael Horton

[Gamecock]

I’ve just returned from Heidelberg, Germany, where I joined brothers and sisters from around the world to celebrate the 450th anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism. In addition to illuminating papers and warm fellowship, we enjoyed one of the city’s several museum exhibits celebrating the anniversary. Of special note was the Heidelberg Palace exhibit, “The Power of Faith: 450 Years of the Heidelberg Catechism.”

Frederick III, ruler of the Palatinate and imperial elector, was nicknamed “the pious” by fellow princes. Embracing Reformed teaching, he was distressed with the low level of knowledge of even the basics of the Christian faith in his territory. Drawing together the best theologians and pastors in the region, he oversaw (and even contributed to) the drafting of a catechism that would be taught in schools, churches, and homes.

Soon after publication in 1563, the Heidelberg Catechism was translated into various languages—including early modern Hebrew and Greek. It soon enjoyed wide use in the English-speaking world as well. Students learned this catechism at Oxford and Cambridge. Today, it is more widely known and used in Asia, Africa, and the Americas than in Europe or even North America. As my children repeat back the clear teaching of the gospel from this great catechism, I am reinvigorated in my own faith.

Yet in Germany itself, the story is rather different.

In Luther’s home state of Saxony-Anhalt, after nearly a century of atheistic indoctrination, only 19% of the population professes belief in God. Yet even more tragic is the widespread unbelief in the west, under the auspices of a privileged but largely apostate Protestant Evangelical Church (EKD). A union of Lutheran and Reformed bodies, the EKD and the Roman Catholic Church claimed 30% of the population each by the end of 2008. Affiliation, however, may mean no more than having been baptized. These Landeskirchen (established churches) continue to receive tax money to fund their undermining of the Christian faith. In recent decades, there have been free (i.e., independent of the state) Lutheran bodies maintaining evangelical convictions, but Arminian Baptist and Pentecostal groups are much larger.

Across the nation, 45% say, “I believe there is a God,” while among the youth the percentage drops to 30%, and 34% are “unaffiliated.” According to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, 55% of the total population claim to be atheists, agnostics, or “non-religious.” Germany has always been the vanguard of intellectual, cultural, and religious trends on the continent. What happens in Germany, for good or ill, has repercussions for the whole of Europe.

During my brief time in Heidelberg, I was impressed with the small group of committed believers who are longing and praying for a new Reformation. Spearheading this event last week was the Free Reformed Church (Selbstündige Evangelisch-Reformierte Kirche) in Heidelberg with the Rev. Sebastian Heck. I joined North American colleagues Joel Beeke, Lyle Bierma, Jason Van Vleet, and Jon Payne in giving some papers on the catechism, but for me it was definitely more blessed to receive than to give.

Among other speakers was Dr. Victor d’Assonville, an astute Reformed theologian. He leads a new seminary that holds great promise as a center for sound training of the small but growing band of future ministers, evangelists, and teachers. Students come from Lutheran and Reformed backgrounds and I had the pleasure of getting to know some of them at the conference. Many were raised in East Germany, where atheism was the state ideology. I was deeply moved by their stories of coming to understand the evangelical faith against all odds (including their own churches) and the depth of their zeal, knowledge, and clarity.

In other travels, I’ve seen first-hand the remarkable blessing of God on his means of grace. There is a hunger for Reformation Christianity around the world. And yet the land of the Reformation is now largely pagan. There is a great need for prayers and financial support for small but zealously faithful ministry in Germany.

[CynicalBear]

>>why would there be zeal to spread the Gospel if God<<

Any truly saved person with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit could answer that question without hesitation. It’s because when one is save Christ indwells that individual and changes their heart to want to please God and detests the sin that his/her human nature still tends towards. When indwelt by the Holy Spirit the desire to obey and please God is a desire that becomes part of the changed heart.

>>what difference to their salvation does it make whether they go to church on Sunday?<<

It doesn’t but the changed heart wants as much interaction with other truly saved people and desire to praise and worship causes the truly saved to want to attend. Only those who don’t understand true salvation don’t understand that desire but think it’s a duty.

>>or they won't be saved no matter what they do?<<

There again, the truly saved understand that it’s not “no matter what they do” but the desire changes to not want to do those things contrary to God’s will.

[piusv]

Yes, please explain it. Why the need for a catechism (another book) if the One Book has all the answers one needs?

Also, where is there mention of confession in the article? I don’t see it.

[HarleyD]

I don’t understand the logic of sola scriptura doctrine with a catechism or confession.

A catechism is nothing more than a statement of belief. If you say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.", that is a catechism and you can cite scripture to support your catechism. Catechisms organizes our doctrine.

Here is the Heidelberg Catechsim.

[Gamecock]

It’s there reread it.

[Gamecock]

OK. Fair enough.

What is your understanding of the REFORMED definition of the term "Sola Scriptura?"

[D-fendr]

Thanks Harley.

Isn’t the theory since Luther that scripture is readable and its interpretation obvious? Why would you need to pick one interpretation organize that into a statement of belief?

I think you may be saying it’s just a different wording or organization; but isn’t it also to say what you believe versus what others believe - based on the same scripture, alone?

[D-fendr]

Thanks Gamecock.

I believe the term depends on who you ask. I’ve heard ones that seem more reasonable, but less sola. And ones less reasonable and more sola.

So it depends. And I think that is part of my point. If the meaning of scripture is obvious, why the need to define beliefs and doctrines?

[HarleyD]

Why would you need to pick one interpretation organize that into a statement of belief?

The early church used catechisms to sort out heresy such as the Apostle Creed or the Nicene Creed. These were simple statements of doctrine. When the Reformation occurred, there was such a division of doctrinal difference with the Catholic Church that Protestants found it very important to state their beliefs in extreme detailed through catechisms like the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession, or the London Baptist Confession of Faith. They not only stated their belief, but they were used as a teaching tools. Our Catholic friends countered with the Council of Trent statement of beliefs. Many of our arguments often goes back to what is stated by the Council of Trent and Protestant beliefs found in the catechism. (Trent is dated first but the doctrinal differences were known.)

I think you may be saying it’s just a different wording or organization; but isn’t it also to say what you believe versus what others believe - based on the same scripture, alone?

If you read through the documents you will find there's not two hoots of difference between the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) and the London Baptist confessions. It is because these define Protestantism-not denominational differences. If you compare one of these documents against the Council of Trent, then you will find Protestant confessions based their statements on scripture and provides the references-much like the Heidelberg Catechism that Gamecock posted. The Council of Trent based their statements on the sediments of the Church. There is no scriptural justification for many of their pronouncements.

Today many of these grand documents are all but forgotten. It is good to be reminded of them. Statements like the Heidelberg Catechism isn't about denominational differences but about what defines Protestants from Catholics. It is our belief in general about the natural of God using sola scriptural as our guide. Regrettably, the reason many Protestants today find nothing wrong with Catholic belief is they have simply have forgotten these documents. They read through these documents disagreeing with portions-even though the scripture references are right in front of them. But there were good reasons the Reformation occurred.

These confessions and catechism are important. Most Protestant church website may have at most 5 or 6 statements of beliefs. These are usually generic and may (or may not) have a piece of scripture attached. ("We're a caring church.", "We're an inclusive church.", etc.) Before I attend any unknown church I usually read their Statement of Beliefs on their website. But it becomes hard to know what any church believe anymore. Even among denominational churches, there are some very off the wall beliefs. Most church statements are extremely generic because they want to get you "in the door". Totally dishonest.

Protestants should embrace documents like the Heidelberg catechism-not shy away from them. They contain the foundational truths of Protestants.

[Gamecock]

So if I understand what you are saying, your interpretation of Sola Scriptura is all (my word) Scripture is obvious?

A lot of folks claim Sola Scriptura, that is why I am asking your understanding of the Reformed formulation.

[D-fendr]

I see your point here: to separate, distinguish from Catholic.

But, a lot of Protestants have the same creeds and there are definitely confessional arguments and distinctions between them.

My main question still is the one I think Luther ran into: if your doctrine is all you need is scripture and it’s meaning is obvious, what happens when someone gets a different meaning than you from it?

CF: Luther and Zwingli.

[D-fendr]

I think “the meaning is obvious (or the same because it is the same scripture) is one underlying assumption of sola scriptura.

I think when Luther discovered that this was not the case, interpretative catechisms/confessions became necessary. And this revealed a problem with sola sciptura - really, almost regardless of the specific definition.

So the logic of sola scriptura is violated if you need another document that says what doctrine you get from scripture in order to be of the Reformed faith.

thanks for your reply

[Gamecock]

Ok, I think I understand your confusion. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Sola Scriptura NEVER clings to all of Scripture being understandable to every Christian. Simply put, Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the Christian.

The Confessions and Catechisms are not, in any way, given superior or equal status to Scripture. Rather they are a summery of essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

I can think of this working it’s way out in three ways.

1. It protects God’s people from erroneous teaching. Let’s say a pastor gets in the pulpit and preaches we are saved by out own works. A Saint in the congregation know this is wrong, but will have to through Scripture trying to remember how to refute that statement. Or he can just open his handy Confession/Catechism and then approach the preacher and ask if he heard the preacher right. If the preacher confirms what the member heard, the summery of Scripture can be used to bring charges in a church court.

2. While Scripture is the Sole Rule of faith, the confessions and Catechisms are useful for instructing children and new believers. The footnotes prove what is being taught.

3. Let’s say Bod stands up in a small group and proclaims an new understanding. Rather than pour through Scripture, the catechism easily refutes false views brought out in small groups. Now the other side of the coin what if members of a church or group start pouring false teaching on a member. The member can double check, quickly, if he is right or the group, without have to spend hours studying Scripture.

[HarleyD]

Yes. In the Presbyterian church I’m attending we often have pastors from other denominations addressing the congregation. If one is rooted in the main tenants of the faith, the other issues take care of themselves.

[D-fendr]

say Bod stands up in a small group and proclaims an new understanding. Rather than pour through Scripture, the catechism easily refutes false views

What if Bob via sola scriptura says his understanding is correct and yours wrong? Which rules? Catechism or scripture?

[D-fendr]

If one is rooted in the main tenants

Who determines the main tenets and on what authority? What if another disagrees on something like salvation by election?

[Gamecock]

If the church courts determine Bob to have a true understanding, the catechism may be changed.

If he is proven wrong, then it won’t be taught in the church. If he insists he is correct, and can’t in good faith worship in that church, then he should peacefully leave that church.

[D-fendr]

Thanks Gamecock, that makes sense.

Still...

:)

This seems to place a church court authority over scripture, something I thought was verbotten.

[Gamecock]

This seems to place a church court authority over scripture

Nah. The church court is subordinate to Scripture.

[D-fendr]

How so? What if they become Bobs?

Does the catechism rule them?

[Gamecock]

It goes back to 32.