Heidelberg Catechism by Scott Clark

[Reformed Covenanter]

Going back to the book itself, I certainly intend to buy and read it at some point, DV. R. Scott Clark is an authority on the Three Forms of Unity, so it is definitely a source worth consulting. Are there any plans for a PDF version?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

My copy arrived in the mail today. Looking forward to reading this theological and spiritual masterpiece.

Thank you for the recommendations. I found the advice very helpful.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Well-researched and addresses many issues, older and newer.

Yes I noticed it made a number of insightful comments on contemporary issues. Also the index shows an extensive coverage of key topics on covenant theology.

Look forward to reading your review.

 

[Christodulus]

It's less a matter of contradicting each other. It's more that the Three Forms of Unity (let's include them all not just the Heidelberg) do not address a number of things that the Westminster Standards address, or address them in far less detail, which allows for a wider variety of views among the Dutch Reformed than are allowed in confessional Presbyterianism -- at least without taking significant exceptions to the Westminster Standards.

But in some cases (especially looking at the Heidelberg and Belgic in particular, since they predate the Arminian controversy) that silence is not so much due to a lack of consensus among Reformed theologians at the time as the lack of a later opposing view which is rejected. For instance, as I recall the WCF says that faith itself is not what is imputed for righteousness, which nobody could impugn without running afoul of Dort, albeit such a plain and simple statement seems absent from the confessions.

Now if your point is that theologians in the era of the Belgic and Heidelberg taught views on the covenant which anticipated the doctrine of the covenant found in the Westminster Standards, we actually agree.

I would actually say they are the foundation of the doctrine of the covenant found in the Westminster Standards.

I have and use Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, but even though Ursinus was the primary author and his commentary helps explain what he meant by what he wrote, his opinions are not binding. The written text of the confession is binding because it was officially adopted by ecclesiastical assemblies.

Is it not the meaning of the written text of the confession which is binding (rather than the bare text apart from its actual meaning) and is not the meaning of a written text identical to the intention of its author?

Its conclusions did not claim any authoritative status for Reformed churches elsewhere

That is untrue, as while it may not have any formal binding authority in those churches all of the Reformed confessions, including those which are not formally binding on any churches on the continent of North America such as the Second Helvetic Confession, have (by analogy to law) persuasive albeit not binding authority. Theologians often utilize them in their theologizing, polemics, and apologetics. An example of this was when Doug Wilson appeared on Abounding Grace Radio, and the Second Helvetic Confession was cited against him. So I think even in this context the Westminster Confession of Faith is received with a somewhat different degree of authority than the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent.

The differences are real, and to minimize or deny them not only is historically inaccurate, but it will blow up when people who think they can subscribe to a different set of confessions do the digging and find out the two traditions, while similar, are different.

This takes me back to the start of this tangent and my original question, which I do not feel was answered. It was said that “there really are theological differences” between Heidelberg and Westminster, which I didn’t understand to mean “there are things stated in Westminster which are unaddressed in Heidelberg” but that they are specifically contrary to each other in some ways. Is it in fact impossible to subscribe totally and without exception to both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards? If so, I would like clarification as to what those specific differences are. (And to clarify, that the traditions post-confessionally do contradict each other in some ways is beyond dispute, I am specifically seeking to understand how there really are theological differences in the confessional texts themselves).

 

[MW]

This takes me back to the start of this tangent and my original question, which I do not feel was answered. It was said that “there really are theological differences” between Heidelberg and Westminster, which I didn’t understand to mean “there are things stated in Westminster which are unaddressed in Heidelberg” but that they are specifically contrary to each other in some ways. Is it in fact impossible to subscribe totally and without exception to both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards? If so, I would like clarification as to what those specific differences are. (And to clarify, that the traditions post-confessionally do contradict each other in some ways is beyond dispute, I am specifically seeking to understand how there really are theological differences in the confessional texts themselves).

Judged charitably, I don't think Heidelberg and Westminster contradict each other in the substance of the faith. The same applies if we compare the Westminster Confession with the Old Scots Confession. But Westminster represents later doctrinal developments and a more articulate "system." And when it comes to interpretation, the system of doctrine is formative. The fruit grows on a tree. One common example that has created some contention is whether assurance belongs to the essence of faith. Under the "Marrow" understanding the two are easily reconciled, but there are those in both groups who would extenuate the difference. Another point of tension is whether Heidelberg can be understood in the light of the Westminster teaching of the covenant of works. Again, I think it can, but historically adherents to Heidelberg have felt freedom to articulate a different doctrine. Then there is the age-old "continental Sabbath" idea. Under the Heidelberg the Further Reformation theologians had to fight a very hard battle against people in their own communion on points that are clearly settled in Westminster.

 

[darrellmaurina]

@MW: I don't disagree with you making this point here: "But Westminster represents later doctrinal developments and a more articulate 'system.'"

That is the Presbyterian argument, and I expect it to be made by you, as a confessional Presbyterian. You have, after all, sworn to believe your confessions.

Not everyone in the Reformed world agrees. Actually, I'm a lot closer to you than many, and my only real area of disagreement with Westminster is church government, not the examples you cite.

You also hit the nail on the head here of why people in Dr. Joel Beeke's denomination and seminary were willing to accept the Westminster Standards:

One common example that has created some contention is whether assurance belongs to the essence of faith. Under the "Marrow" understanding the two are easily reconciled, but there are those in both groups who would extenuate the difference.

The following point you make addresses why many others in the Dutch Reformed world, including the Canadian Reformed and Protestant Reformed and some others, object to points on which the Westminster Standards go beyond the Three Forms of Unity:

Another point of tension is whether Heidelberg can be understood in the light of the Westminster teaching of the covenant of works. Again, I think it can, but historically adherents to Heidelberg have felt freedom to articulate a different doctrine. Then there is the age-old "continental Sabbath" idea. Under the Heidelberg the Further Reformation theologians had to fight a very hard battle against people in their own communion on points that are clearly settled in Westminster.

I would prefer to let the Protestant Reformed and Canadian Reformed people who are here, and Netherlands Reformed people (if there are any here). explain the details of their views on covenantal theology and related matters. My understanding is they don't object to WCF people subscribing to their own confessions but want the freedom to hold views which they have held for a century (in the case of the Protestant Reformed) and which were at the center of the deposition of Klaas Schilder in 1944 when the GKN Synod met to try Schilder, who was at the time hiding from the Nazis and unable to defend himself.

The issue of the "continental Sabbath" is, I believe, largely a red herring. Most people today I know who advocate a "continental" view of the Sabbath are not Dutch Reformed, but rather Presbyterians in the PCA who use it as an excuse to take an exception to the Westminster Standards. I'd say different things if we were in the 1600s -- there really WERE reasons why the Pilgrim Church at Leiden felt the Dutch were weak on the Sabbath and left to found the Plymouth Colony in what became New England! -- but that today is an irony of history that the common Dutch Reformed practice is stricter than the text of the confessions require, while the common Presbyterian practice (meaning in the PCA) is looser than the text of the confessions require.

But Rev. Winzer is right. Go to Ursinus' commentary and you'll find a high view of the Lord's Day. The commentary goes beyond the text. Ursinus was not stupid and he knew he has working with a government and a people who were fairly new to Protestantism and their previous instruction had been Lutheran. He put into the text a strong statement about what the Bible teaches on honoring the Lord's Day but didn't bind the conscience of people who he knew would disagree by putting into the text of the actual catechism things that he put into his commentary on it.

I think much of what I have said to @MW will also reply to Scott, but I want to address this specific point:

This takes me back to the start of this tangent and my original question, which I do not feel was answered. It was said that “there really are theological differences” between Heidelberg and Westminster, which I didn’t understand to mean “there are things stated in Westminster which are unaddressed in Heidelberg” but that they are specifically contrary to each other in some ways. Is it in fact impossible to subscribe totally and without exception to both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards? If so, I would like clarification as to what those specific differences are. (And to clarify, that the traditions post-confessionally do contradict each other in some ways is beyond dispute, I am specifically seeking to understand how there really are theological differences in the confessional texts themselves).

Westminster goes beyond the TFU. I think that point is beyond dispute.

I do not believe the confessions contradict each other in the sense that "it in fact impossible to subscribe totally and without exception to both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards."

There are some in the Dutch Reformed world who do say that and have made a point of attacking the Presbyterian standards. That has never been my view, and I think that view has largely died out. In earlier generations, that was generally the position of more "progressive" people among the Dutch Reformed back when people on the progressive side of the CRC still believed, or pretended to believe, in confessional subscription. The more conservative people in the Dutch Reformed world who disagree with parts of the Westminster Standards have generally said, "You have the right to believe that, it is within the Reformed tradition to believe what you believe, but it goes beyond our confessions and we are not bound by your confessions, but by our confessions."

It's a one-way street, not a two-way street, between the two traditions. But even that is limited. A conservative Presbyterian doesn't hold doctrines that contradict the Three Forms of Unity in principle, but the Blue Bell controversy in Philadelphia, when the OPC lost a church that split two ways, part of it ending up in the Canadian Reformed Churches (technically the Canadian and American Reformed Churches) and part of it ending up in the Protestant Reformed Churches, shows not only that the confessions are different but also that the Dutch Reformed don't fully agree themselves on what the Three Forms mean on the covenant. Schilder and Hoeksema got along well personally, but the doctrinal differences were real.

(And yes, I do know the recent history of Blue Bell. It's not relevant to the point I'm making here, and I don't want to get into a very difficult local church situation of two small churches trying to find a way to continue in an increasingly liberal part of the country where young people leave for better opportunities.)

 

[PreDustined]

Spot on about exceptions.

The Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession are basic, simple summaries of the Reformed faith with which anyone who is Reformed should agree, apart from Reformed Baptists and low-church Anglicans, in both cases for obvious reasons.

Not that Baptists are bad people -- I don't believe that at all -- but the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism were both written in an era when the Anabaptists were a major problem and the modern (and historic Puritan-era) Reformed Baptist movement hadn't yet developed, or at minimum, hadn't yet separated itself from the Anabaptists. As for Anglicans, I suppose an Anglican could affirm the Heidelberg, though I am unaware of any that do, but the view of church government in the Belgic isn't compatible with episcopacy. (It was, however, regarded by the Congregationalists as acceptable -- it doesn't address the issues that later became problematic between the English Congregationalists and English and Scottish Presbyterians.)

The Canons of Dordt are precise and detailed, but only on one narrow point of Reformed doctrine -- Arminianism. People from Reformed churches all over Europe who disagreed on a lot of secondary issues gathered together in an international synod to condemn Arminianism and define what it means to be Reformed. Yes, the Canons are precise, but they are precise on a narrow point on which basically the whole Reformed world came to consensus that five points summarize the non-negotiables of what it means to be Reformed, even for people who disagree on bishops, worship practices, the authority of synods, and a long list of other issues.

If someone disagrees with something in the Three Forms of Unity, it's a far more serious issue than disagreeing with something in the Westminster Standards, PRECISELY because of the precision which Westminster advocates view as an advantage.

When I assented to the Form of Subscription, I knew what I was doing. I took years to make sure I could do it in good conscience.

That just isn't the way confessional subscription works in Presbyterian circles, where asking for a pastor's list of exceptions is common practice. I'm not being critical of the practice of exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but the difference in is real, it is rooted precisely in the relative levels of precision between the Westminster/Three Forms traditions, and the difference has real consequences

For these reasons are why I will remain in the URCNA and if not that then CANRC instead, the more I learn about the Dutch and the Scottish traditions the more I appreciate the the Dutch tradition

 

[jwright82]

@MW: I don't disagree with you making this point here: "But Westminster represents later doctrinal developments and a more articulate 'system.'"

That is the Presbyterian argument, and I expect it to be made by you, as a confessional Presbyterian. You have, after all, sworn to believe your confessions.

Not everyone in the Reformed world agrees. Actually, I'm a lot closer to you than many, and my only real area of disagreement with Westminster is church government, not the examples you cite.

You also hit the nail on the head here of why people in Dr. Joel Beeke's denomination and seminary were willing to accept the Westminster Standards:



The following point you make addresses why many others in the Dutch Reformed world, including the Canadian Reformed and Protestant Reformed and some others, object to points on which the Westminster Standards go beyond the Three Forms of Unity:



I would prefer to let the Protestant Reformed and Canadian Reformed people who are here, and Netherlands Reformed people (if there are any here). explain the details of their views on covenantal theology and related matters. My understanding is they don't object to WCF people subscribing to their own confessions but want the freedom to hold views which they have held for a century (in the case of the Protestant Reformed) and which were at the center of the deposition of Klaas Schilder in 1944 when the GKN Synod met to try Schilder, who was at the time hiding from the Nazis and unable to defend himself.

The issue of the "continental Sabbath" is, I believe, largely a red herring. Most people today I know who advocate a "continental" view of the Sabbath are not Dutch Reformed, but rather Presbyterians in the PCA who use it as an excuse to take an exception to the Westminster Standards. I'd say different things if we were in the 1600s -- there really WERE reasons why the Pilgrim Church at Leiden felt the Dutch were weak on the Sabbath and left to found the Plymouth Colony in what became New England! -- but that today is an irony of history that the common Dutch Reformed practice is stricter than the text of the confessions require, while the common Presbyterian practice (meaning in the PCA) is looser than the text of the confessions require.

But Rev. Winzer is right. Go to Ursinus' commentary and you'll find a high view of the Lord's Day. The commentary goes beyond the text. Ursinus was not stupid and he knew he has working with a government and a people who were fairly new to Protestantism and their previous instruction had been Lutheran. He put into the text a strong statement about what the Bible teaches on honoring the Lord's Day but didn't bind the conscience of people who he knew would disagree by putting into the text of the actual catechism things that he put into his commentary on it.

I think much of what I have said to @MW will also reply to Scott, but I want to address this specific point:



Westminster goes beyond the TFU. I think that point is beyond dispute.

I do not believe the confessions contradict each other in the sense that "it in fact impossible to subscribe totally and without exception to both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards."

There are some in the Dutch Reformed world who do say that and have made a point of attacking the Presbyterian standards. That has never been my view, and I think that view has largely died out. In earlier generations, that was generally the position of more "progressive" people among the Dutch Reformed back when people on the progressive side of the CRC still believed, or pretended to believe, in confessional subscription. The more conservative people in the Dutch Reformed world who disagree with parts of the Westminster Standards have generally said, "You have the right to believe that, it is within the Reformed tradition to believe what you believe, but it goes beyond our confessions and we are not bound by your confessions, but by our confessions."

It's a one-way street, not a two-way street, between the two traditions. But even that is limited. A conservative Presbyterian doesn't hold doctrines that contradict the Three Forms of Unity in principle, but the Blue Bell controversy in Philadelphia, when the OPC lost a church that split two ways, part of it ending up in the Canadian Reformed Churches (technically the Canadian and American Reformed Churches) and part of it ending up in the Protestant Reformed Churches, shows not only that the confessions are different but also that the Dutch Reformed don't fully agree themselves on what the Three Forms mean on the covenant. Schilder and Hoeksema got along well personally, but the doctrinal differences were real.

(And yes, I do know the recent history of Blue Bell. It's not relevant to the point I'm making here, and I don't want to get into a very difficult local church situation of two small churches trying to find a way to continue in an increasingly liberal part of the country where young people leave for better opportunities.)

I had not ever heard anything about the Blue Bell church controversy, very fascinating history. But at first I looked up "recent church controversy in Philadelphia" and it brought up a horrible story of two pastors guilty of crimes against minors and I thought "ok change your search to Reformed church" and that brought up the correct story.
Very interesting story about the difference between Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian Church differences. My first thought about that tragic story about the evil the two pastors did was "if this has anything to do with Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian Church differences then I give up trying to learn".
But thankfully it didn't and a horrible evil was stopped.