# The Heidelberg Catechism and the Children of Believers



## TylerRay (May 27, 2015)

What is implied about covenant children in the way that the Heidelberg Catechism applies the language of salvation and relationship to God to the child being catechized? No doubt the presumptive regenerationsists will say that their view is implied, while hyper-covenantalists (Federal Vision folks, etc.) will say that their view is implied. What is the real answer?


----------



## MW (May 27, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> No doubt the presumptive regenerationsists (Protestant Reformed men and others)



The "Protestant Reformed men" reject presumptive regeneration.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 27, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> ...while hyper-covenantalists (Klaas Schilder and his disciples) will say that their view is implied.



And Schilder and his disciples should not be caricatured as "hyper-covenantalists."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2015)

MW said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt the presumptive regenerationsists (Protestant Reformed men and others)
> ...






Guido's Brother said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > ...while hyper-covenantalists (Klaas Schilder and his disciples) will say that their view is implied.
> ...



My apologies, brothers. I honestly thought that the Protestant Reformed Churches boldly taught presumptive regeneration and made no bones about it. I wasn't trying to throw any stones at them.

As for Schilder, I've only heard his view as mediated through Shepherdism and the Federal Vision theology. If they misrepresent Schilder, then my comment was unwarranted. If they do him justice, then this views are indeed hyper-covenantalism.


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2015)

I have edited my original post. Hopefully it presumes less and is more palatable than it was before. My apologies.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 28, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> As for Schilder, I've only heard his view as mediated through Shepherdism and the Federal Vision theology. If they misrepresent Schilder, then my comment was unwarranted. If they do him justice, then this views are indeed hyper-covenantalism.



If you're interested, I respond to the FV claims that they're in the line of Schilder in this booklet. 

As for the original question, there's a great talk by Dr. Jason Van Vliet on this subject, "The Comforted 'I' in the Catechism." You can find audio and video here.


----------



## Jack K (May 28, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> What is implied about covenant children in the way that the Heidelberg Catechism applies the language of salvation and relationship to God to the child being catechized? No doubt the presumptive regenerationsists will say that their view is implied, while hyper-covenantalists (Federal Vision folks, etc.) will say that their view is implied. What is the real answer?



As for your original question, let me see if I understand it. Do you mean to ask that since the catechism speaks as if the reader is a believer ("What is your only comfort...", etc.) it is implying presumptive regeneration?

If so, I will say that the default way of speaking to kids in the church ought to be to treat them as young disciples. So we use language suited to believers and we comfort them with the encouragements that those who are in Christ receive. They are part of the covenant community. They are training in discipleship. And it is, frankly, impossible to effectively train someone in discipleship while at the same time treating them as if they are an unbeliever destined to suffer God's wrath and lacking the help of the Spirit. Progress in discipleship is made only through the help of the Spirit and in the comfort and confidence that comes from knowing God as one's Father.

It's foolishness to try to disciple a suspected heathen. What would you say? "Try to be good, but don't bother praying for the Spirit's help because God is still your enemy." That would be wrong in so many ways, so we treat young disciples as believers.

Yet we don't presume more than we ought. We know some kids (or adults!) may not yet believe, and so we remind them often of the blessings offered in the gospel and the need for saving faith, just as the Heidelberg Catechism does despite its language that speaks to readers as if they are saved.


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2015)

Jack K said:


> As for your original question, let me see if I understand it. Do you mean to ask that since the catechism speaks as if the reader is a believer ("What is your only comfort...", etc.) it is implying presumptive regeneration?



What I mean to ask is what is implied in the Catechism's dealing with the catechumen (who is, presumably, a covenant child). I don't personally think that presumptive regeneration is intended; my understanding is that doctrine developed later.

Your answer is helpful, but doesn't seem to get to the root of the question. You state that we are to treat the children of believers as young disciples, but why? Are we to presume that they are, in fact, young disciples? Do they possess the promises which belong to disciples? Are they young disciples in fact (in some sense or every sense) because of their covenant status? Or are we simply to treat give them a judgment of charity about their being in Christ by virtue of their being in the covenant externally and objectively?

Does the Catechism imply a particular view? What was the original intent?


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2015)

Guido's Brother said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > As for Schilder, I've only heard his view as mediated through Shepherdism and the Federal Vision theology. If they misrepresent Schilder, then my comment was unwarranted. If they do him justice, then this views are indeed hyper-covenantalism.
> ...



Thank you, Dr. Brendenhof. I'll be listening to the link you provided as soon as I get a chance.

In your booklet do you deal with David Engelsma's assessment of the connection between Schilder and the FV? Is this piece available in electronic format?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 28, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> You state that we are to treat the children of believers as young disciples, but why?



Define "disciple" correctly, and you may solve your own dilemma. Is the term "disciple" a synonym for "sure and certain convert?" Is it the same thing as "regenerated person?" As a Presbyterian, you should affirm no such definition.

We make disciples by "baptizing and teaching," Mt.28:19-20. Who are the proper candidates for baptizing and teaching? These little ones: have we baptized them? Are we teaching them? Sounds to me like they fit the definition of "disciple."

We are all of us disciples who are in the church of Christ, under its discipline, being taught the faith weekly, if not with even greater regularity. It is right and proper to teach a little child to say the right answers to the catechism questions; thereby he begins to know the truth. How much of his "heart" is in the answer he gives? Who cares? No one can know how much heart is in the answer of a 40yr old either.

For the Reformed, Christianity does not have to be viewed at all angles as an individual enlistment, as a purposed commitment only those on the "outside" make to come in, once they have attained sufficient discernment. Some children are blessed to be born dependents of prior-committed citizens of the Kingdom. They are "in that respect" within the covenant already, which (Presbyterians affirm) makes them proper candidates for baptism.

Admission to the Table is supposed to mark the church's recognition that these who have been taught the faith from infancy are accredited as publicly self-determining Christians, capable of discerning the Lord's body, as well as being held accountable for that declaration.


----------



## Jack K (May 28, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> Your answer is helpful, but doesn't seem to get to the root of the question. You state that we are to treat the children of believers as young disciples, but why? Are we to presume that they are, in fact, young disciples? Do they possess the promises which belong to disciples? Are they young disciples in fact (in some sense or every sense) because of their covenant status? Or are we simply to treat give them a judgment of charity about their being in Christ by virtue of their being in the covenant externally and objectively?



Like Bruce, I make a distinction between those who are saved (only God knows who they are) and those who are disciples (everyone in the church). Most of the time, those who are in the church and being discipled are spoken to as if they are saved because they are part of the community of Christ's people. This isn't meant to presume that they necessarily ARE saved. Think, for example, of how a preacher usually addresses his congregation as if speaking to saved people even when he knows some church members might not be. The church does not sing, "The Lord might be my shepherd, I hope I shall not want." Rather, the church speaks as if it all is true.

In the same way, I say things like "God is your Father" when teaching church kids because they're part of the church community, and as a community we ought to think of God as our Father. I would not call it a charitable judgment about them being saved. It is a statement that flows from their known status as a part of Christ's visible church. (And they know they need saving faith for it to be true of them individually, in the end.)


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > You state that we are to treat the children of believers as young disciples, but why?
> ...



Rev. Buchanan,

As is very frequently the case, you have helped a great deal. To view those in the covenant externally as under the tutelage of Christ clears the issue up tremendously. I was conflating "disciples" with the regenerate. I try to keep in mind the external and objective aspect of the covenant, and have no problem calling the visible church the people of God, and Christians individually, while not ascribing to each of them all the benefits of Christ; but it's difficult to keep a proper balance. The I was a bit thrown off by the HC on this point.


Jack,

Thank you for your clarification. That is helpful.


----------



## MW (May 28, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> I was a bit thrown off by the HC on this point.



Have you noticed how the Shorter Catechism does the same with reference to the offices of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the benefits of effectual calling?


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2015)

MW said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > I was a bit thrown off by the HC on this point.
> ...



Wow. I had not. I'd always thought of the SC as dealing more with abstractions and the HC being more personal, and that's true for the most part, but you're absolutely right. Excellent point.


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 29, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> In your booklet do you deal with David Engelsma's assessment of the connection between Schilder and the FV? Is this piece available in electronic format?



No, I don't discuss David Engelsma. And no, I'm sorry, Reformed Fellowship hasn't yet made this booklet available in an e-format.


----------

