Sunday, October 29, 2023

Lord's Day 3

Ursinus' commentary on Lord's Day 3 is extensive, clocking in at 66 pages, and covering topics ranging from original sin, why God allowed the possibility of sin, the types of sin, free will, sin against the Holy Spirit and many other issues. As a theologian Ursinus is establishing foundational concepts that will be the building blocks for furture discussion. This section also includes many of the “objection/answer” segments – a catechism within a catechism. In order to manage the discussion, focus was placed on basic exposition of the three Questions and Answers (6, 7, 8); a section under Q.7 regarding why God permitted sin; and then a lengthy discussion under Q.8 on Free Will.

It was interesting to me that Ursinus asks “But is the plucking of an apple such a great and heinous offence?” He does not get bogged down in dispute over the actual fruit of the forbidden tree, but rhetorically jumps over any petty arguments to the crux of human objection - “No just judge inflicts a great punishment on account of a small offence.” He establishes that this was not just a matter of trying some new and exotic treat – instead, taking the word of the serpent, aspiring not just to be made in the image of God, wanting more, much more – “ your eyes will open and you will be like God.” Adam's own “cogito,ergo sum”, a challenge to the true I AM. As Ursinus notes, “a most aggravated sin—comprehending pride, ingratitude, apostasy, etc.”.

The discussion of “free will” is interesting and helpful in considering that free will does not necessarily preclude restraint. In the section “What Kind of Liberty of Will Has Man; or How Many Degrees of Free-Will Are There, According to Man's Four-Fold State?” Ursinus establishes that free will does exist, but the “state” – 1) pre-fall, 2) post-fall, 3) regenerated, 4) glorified – determines the constraints on human choice. In State 1, there was the ability to choose good or evil; State 2, people can choose but since, by definition, humans are in rebellion to God any choice is evil. State 3, a human, still in “the flesh”, but with a regenerated heart is able to once again experience some ability to choose good over evil; and finally, State 4, in our resurrected, glorified bodies we will never desire anything other than the glory of God.

Discussion Notes: A question: partly related to the question of why God permitted sin, but more generally, a question how we understand the purpose of God in his plan. In discussion of Q. 8 Ursinus considers two reasons for permitting sin – one is to show the weakness of the creature “when left to himself”, and the other is that God “might display his goodness, mercy, and grace, in saving, through Christ, all them that believe; and manifest his justice and power in punishing the wicked and reprobate for their sins.” A typical Reformed formulation is that God does all for his own glory. The pushback on this, correctly, was that God does all things to display his mercy and love. On the face, these ideas, if pushed to their limits, seem opposed to one another – in fact, in our limited human frame and understanding doing something for one's own glory might seem questionable.

Enter the Internet :) It is not hard to find various sides of this discussion. One author expresses this sensitivity to maligning God's character:

My basic argument is that if we were to say that the purpose in God’s creation of humanity is for His own self-glorification without major qualification, I believe that we do damage to God’s character. I want to briefly lay out my reasons why I would not and do not say that God created man to glorify Himself

Another sees this as a Calvinist/Arminian faceoff:

I suggested that at the heart of Calvinist theology is the desire to preserve the glory of God as the sole cause of salvation and that the heart of Arminian theology is the desire to preserve the faithfulness of God to his own relentless love for every one of his creatures.... The fairly standard Calvinist response is that God shows his justice and holiness for the sake of his own glory.... This means – amazingly – that God is more ego-centered than he is other-centered.

In order to parse this question we must be careful to not get off too far in one direction or the other, and it also helps to have further background and scope of understanding to consider additional aspects that affect the discussion. One of these is perichoresis which adds to our understanding of the intra-Trinitarian relationship. The interaction and giving of glory between the three persons of the Trinity gives greater depth and nuance to the idea of God giving glory to himself. This author does a good job of giving a balanced explanation:

Now I want you to consider that when God gave Jesus for our salvation, He sent Him because He loved the world, but His ultimate goal was not our salvation, but the glory of His Son Jesus Christ through our salvation. And when Jesus died for our sins, He died for us, but ultimately He was dying for us because He loved the Father and wanted to obey, please, and glorify Him by laying down His life for the sheep.

The bottom line is that it is difficult to understand many of these things, and it is important to be aware of aspects that affect and interact with one another, careful to keep things in balance and perspective.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Sunday, October 22, 2023

Lord's Day 2

As much as Lord's Day 1 was all about comfort, Lord's Day 2 is about misery. Quite a turn around. Though if one understands the meaning of comfort offered in Lord's Day 1, the focus on misery begins to make sense. Comfort is not the warm fuzzy blanket; it is the rock in the middle of the stream which offers refuge while the flood waters race by. It is the savior who offers rescue when faced with God's condemnation. Misery looks at the danger that makes comfort so desirable. 

The first question in this LD (#3) asks from what do we determine our misery, or what is the standard by which we measure ourselves. The answer being: the law of God. The law tells us that not only have we not kept the law, but that we cannot keep it. The law that cannot be kept also implies a penalty. Therefore our misery consists of the knowledge that we cannot meet God's law standard and that as a result we are under condemnation and must anticipate the consequences. 

Questions 4 and 5 look in further detail at aspects of our misery - what is is required in the law, and whether we can meet the demands of the law. The law of God can be thought of in a summarized way - Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy and Leviticus in summarizing the law as first, perfect love for God, and second, love for neighbor. The law of God is also nuanced, which much of the rest of the Bible describes and illustrates. Alastair Roberts, in a booklet on sexual ethics, describes this interaction between summary and detail as a grammar that develops, and gives a more complete understanding of how we interact with the law. 

The focus of question 5, finally, concludes that since we cannot and do not keep the law, based on comparing ourselves to the requirements of the law, we stand condemned - the very definition of misery. 

Discussion Notes: One question that came up in discussion had to do with the strong language of question 5 - "I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbor." This is the language of Total Depravity of the Synod of Dort. It also amplifies the contrast presented in this Lord's Day - we cannot and do not keep the commandments. We are not able to love God perfectly; we are not able to love our neighbor as we should. The Summer's Best Two Weeks program uses the slogan "I'm third", implying that God is first, our neighbor second, and myself third. It seems, however, that explicitly injecting "I'm third" into the Love God/love neighbor formula implicitly triggers our inclination to try to better our position - it is the American way, the human way. In contrast to the absolute standard of love God perfectly and out of that to love our neighbor as ourselves, we can deduce that we are indeed prone by nature to hate God and our neighbor. 

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Lord's Day 1

Wow! Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (of which he was the principle author) has got to be one of the best kept secrets of the Reformed world! While people are searching the Internet for resources and study materials, this gem has been hiding all the while in plain sight. So far it has proved to be clear, concise and extremely readable. Recently I have been going through the "The Distinctive Doctrines of the Heidelberg Catechism" by George Richards found in the column to the right under Additional Resources. This has been helpful,  along with Ursinus' commentary, in understanding the design and construction of the document. 

It is obvious from the start that "comfort" is a key focus of the catechism. Ursinus thoroughly discuss the kind of comfort we seek, how to get it, how to know that we have it - including the response (which is not optional). Richards' work helps us to get a step farther, in seeing how some of the key doctrines found in other Reformed documents are integrated under the hood. For example, election and predestination are doctrinal issues covered in Calvin's and other catechisms of the Reformation. The Heidelberg Catechism (HC from here) does not explicitly address these doctrines, but they are present when seen from a user's point of view - and that is consistent with the very personal nature of the catechism. Question 2, for instance, addresses "how great my sins and misery are", including the detail that I am totally unable to initiate a fix to this dilemma - it must come from God. It is not difficult to see election and predestination lurking in the shadows. 

As noted, comfort is a major focus of the HC - Question 1 asking, "What is your only comfort..." As noted above, Ursinus addresses the specific kind of comfort we need to seek, but I was prompted to consider how that term typically functions in our day-to-day lives. A warm sweater or a well-worn pair of slippers might provide comfort, both for their warmth, but maybe also some inkling of nostalgia. We have comfort food, sometimes junk food, which we seek when we are stressed. And sometimes we develop bad habits in search of comfort - the occasional glass of wine, becomes a daily glass, and then glasses... Ursinus, in his exposition of Lord's Day 1 also touches on the deceptiveness of our hearts and our tendency to devise our own methods of deliverance, which I'm sure includes and goes beyond the examples I've mentioned. While the comfort of the HC is about spiritual comfort, it needs also to be a daily comfort. We do not necessarily have to discard our favorite slippers or foreswear other occasional indulgences, but I think that we do need to be cognizant of how deeply the comfort of which the HC speaks should encompass and integrate with our daily lives. 

Now for some brief highlights from Ursinus commentary. Ursinus starts with the basics in exploring "comfort" - What is it? What does it consist of? Why is it alone solid and trustworthy? Why is it necessary? How do we get it (i.e., how many things are necessary for its attainment)? There are some other breakout lists like this, but for the most part it is a solid exposition of the steps in acquiring faith, sometimes referred to as the Golden Chain or "ordo salutis". He also notes that the only sure map in navigating our way from misery to comfort is Divine Revelation - the Word of God - the Bible (which of course connects to another solid Reformational maxim - Sola Scriptura). 

Therefore, although philosophy, and all the various sects, enquire after and promise such a good as that affords solid comfort to man, both in life and death, yet they neither have, nor can bestow, that which is necessary to meet the demands of our moral nature. It is only the doctrine of the church that presents such a good, and that imparts a comfort that quiets, and satisfies the conscience; for it alone uncovers the fountain of all the miseries to which the human race is subject, and reveals the only way of escape through Christ. (from Ursinus' commentary)

 Question 2 of the HC further sets the structure of the catechism, asking how many things are necessary to know in understanding, finding and acquiring this comfort. The Answer speaks to the size of the problem, a solution with the ability to remedy the problem, and the appropriate response for the remedy provided - from this comes the alliterative formula - Guilt, Grace, Gratitude - around which the rest of the catechism is structured. 

A few things that I was surprised by in Ursinus' commentary was the emphasis he puts on gratitude. First, he notes that we must know the enormity of our problem (to draw on the Canons of Dort terminology, Total Depravity - but this is 35 years future to Ursinus). Then understanding the magnitude of the solution, we should have an appropriately sized response. Ursinus seems to go even further, indicating that we must have an appropriate response of gratitude. Size is not so much the issue, but if a gratitude response is not evident, the question arises as to whether anything has actually happened - i.e., has the prerequisite recognition and resolution of the problem occurred? An additional dimension of the need for gratitude, is that it must be appropriate gratitude - acceptable to God as prescribed in his Word. 

A final thought on catechisms and comfort - another distinctive that Richards points out has to do with the relationship between Creator and creature - whereas the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) asks:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

The Heidelberg asks, "What is your only comfort in life and in death?" A totally different approach, but while following a different road, it does end up at the same destination. While the WSC prescribes a definition, the HC takes a very personal approach. But as noted above - the importance of gratitude in recognizing the greatness of the salvation that God has provided through the work of Jesus Christ does ultimately result in bringing praise, worship, thanksgiving and glory to God. 

Sunday, October 8, 2023

Intro to the Heidelberg Catechism

 The Heidelberg Catechism! That's what we will be looking at this year - 52 Lord's Days will give us ample material to study, and this is the introductory post. In our first session we looked at some of the historical background, the structure and style of the catechism (and reasons for it), and a brief discussion of the theology of the catechism. We barely scratched the surface! There is a massive amount of material on the Internet about this time period, the Reformation, and even the Heidelberg Catechism. Delve into the Additional Resources in the column to the right if you are so inclined. I will use the rest of this post to  present information from some of these resources, in some cases copying paragraphs directly from the sources - I do not intend or pretend to have this taken as my own research or even words. In places I have provided sentences or slightly modified text to improve the flow for the reader, and I will try to accurately indicate where information is taken from so that the reader can dig deeper on their own (hover your mouse over the number in parentheses at the end of the paragraph to get identify the article in the Additional Resources from which the information was taken).

Historical Background:

The Reformation did not happen all at once or in all places at the same time. Luther lit the fuse with the nailing of his 95 theses on the Wittenberg church door in October 1517. Soon after, in April 1518, Luther traveled to Heidelberg for a debate (disputation) at the annual meeting of the Augustinian monks. Here he presented his Heidelberg Theses which called for a clear and sustained focus on the cross of Christ as the only means of salvation.

While relatively small, Heidelberg, was the seat of one of seven electors who held the responsibility of choosing a new emperor when that was necessary. In addition, the Elector of the Palatinate also served as the interim emperor, or imperial steward, whenever there was a vacancy in the imperial office due to death or other tragic circumstances. Therefore the city of Heidelberg was not only a prominent city within the Palatinate, but given the weighty responsibilities of its Elector within the Holy Roman Empire, its influence far outstripped its size. (3)

Luther's Heidelberg Theses do not appear to have had much of an immediate effect on the city or citizens of Heidelberg itself. This was probably due to the fact that the Elector at that time, Ludwig V (1478-1544), was noncommital on the whole matter of spiritual reform in his territory. He was more interested in politics and hunting than doctrine and sanctified living.

The evangelical writings of Luther began spreading quickly as early as the 1520s. At this time Protestant churches were already being established throughout the Holy Roman Empire.

During the 1520s some reformed-minded leaders in Heidelberg began to call for change. Some of the faculty at the University of Heidelberg began to teach from a Protestant perspective.

In the 1530s the Reformation continued to spread with apparent relentlessness, so that by the end of the 1530s the north and the east of the Empire had become extensively Protestant.

At the beginning of the 1540s the ecclesiastical prince elector, Archbishop Hermann von Wied, requested that Martin Bucer, the Reformer of Strasbourg, come to the Electorate of Cologne to reorganize this princely territory according to Reformation principles. This development seemed particularly threatening to Charles V, since the whole northwest of the Empire threatened to fall to Protestantism through the Electorate of Cologne. That would have meant that the Habsburg Netherlands would have been cut off from the Catholic territories in the Empire. Because of this, the emperor reacted vigorously, first by instigating a “battle of printed pamphlets”. This was followed soon after by preparations for a military campaign against the Protestants. In 1546 the so-called Schmalkaldic War broke out. On April 24, 1547 the Protestants were thoroughly defeated. The leaders of the Schmalkaldic League, Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony and landgrave Philipp of Hesse, were taken prisoners. (3, p. 17)

While the Interim was a setback for the Reformation, it certainly did not stop it. Resistance to the Interim finally culminated in the Peace of Augsburg (1555). This decree allowed each local prince to decide the religious direction of his region.

The peace of Augsburg in 1555 was the immediate pre-condition for an area-wide introduction of the Reformation in the Electoral Palatinate. There had previously been several isolated attempts to put Reformation ideas into practice. For example, in 1545 Prince Elector Frederick II (Elector since 1544) took communion in both kinds and enacted the first church ordinances which included the mass in German, emphasis on the Bible and restrictions on the veneration of saints. Nevertheless, he tried to assume a mediating position between the Emperor and the Protestant princes (Schindling/Ziegler 1993:9-24; Wolgast 1998:17-32). These incipient attempts to introduce the Reformation were discontinued after the defeat of the Protestants in the Schmalkaldic War. The Augsburg Interim of 1548 imposed upon the Protestants a religious law which rolled back the achievements of the Reformation extensively. Only communion in both kinds and clerical marriage continued to be allowed, but this was only until a council would enact definitive regulations. (3)

Elector Ludwig V's successor, Frederick II, was far more open-minded to the Reformation. In 1546 he even promoted a number of religious reforms in the Palatinate. However, even though Elector Frederick II was an influential man, he was not nearly as powerful as the emperor himself, Charles V, who was staunchly Roman Catholic. Especially after an alliance of Protestant princes, called the Schmalkaldic League, lost a battle against the imperial army, Charles V ensured that the Reformation would be suppressed, both in the Palatinate and elsewhere. In 1548 he enacted the Augsburg Interim which essentially required all territories under his rule to return to the teachings and practices of Rome.

The following year, in 1556, Elector Frederick II was succeeded by Otto Henry (Ottheinrich). He was a stronger supporter of the Reformation. Not only did he bring in a new church order and promote the use of the Württemberg Catechism for education, he also sent a church visitation team around to all the local congregations to determine what the actual, spiritual state of affairs was in his territory. The results that came back were not encouraging. Ministers were not well-trained; congregations were not well-fed; superstitions and traditions were more prominent than the knowledge of Scripture and holy living. Elector Otto Henry was eager to change all of that. Influenced by Philipp Melanchthon (1597–60), Otto Heinrich had collected representatives from a variety of Protestant traditions: confessional Lutheran (e.g., Tileman Hesshussen 1527–88) and Reformed (e.g., Pierre Boquin, 1518–82), and Zwinglian (e.g., Wilehelm Klebitz, c. 1533–88). (4)

There was theological tension and confusion within the University and the church when Frederick arrived. The tensions forced him him to study and come to conclusions. As he did he called confessionally Reformed theologians to the University and the church, and commissioned the catechism in 1562. His noble efforts were cut short, however, when he died only three years after becoming elector. It was left to the new Elector, Frederick III, Otto Henry's nephew, to continue what his uncle had begun.

Friederich, however, was not a Lutheran but Reformed. Under the terms of the Peace of Augsburg (1555) the ruler’s religion was the peoples’ religion. So the people were going to change religions for the third time in just a few years.

The Palatinate church had been through two revolutions in the previous twenty years. In 1543 they were Roman Catholic. By 1553 they were Protestant and ten years after that they were about to become confessionally Reformed. The churches needed a clear, unambiguous articulation about what Scripture teaches concerning the most important questions of the Christian faith and life.

The state of the Reformed confession in the whole of Europe was also in a state of confusion. Three years after the abdication by Charles V, Ferdinand I (1503–64) became Holy Roman Emperor until his death eight years later. Philip II (1527–98) acceded to the throne in Spain and began a violent suppression of the Reformed there resulting in the martyrdom of thousands of Reformed Christians. The reign of “Bloody Mary” Tudor in England, which drove English Reformed Christians to Geneva, Frankfurt, and Heidelberg, the outbreak of the First French War of Religion (1562–63), which would continue intermittently and end with the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572), in which no fewer than 30,000 French Reformed Christians would be slaughtered in the space of week, combined to justify his sense that the Reformed were a persecuted people who needed a safe haven outside of Geneva and who needed to be able to articulate the Reformed confession in a way that made sense to fellow evangelicals and that demonstrated the real common ground that existed between the two principal Protestant traditions, Lutheran and Reformed as well as explaining clearly the basis for the Reformed dissent from the the Lutheran theology on Christology, the sacraments, and the practice of worship to name the major areas. (1)

For his part Frederick III professed not to be a “Calvinist” (an expression created by Lutheran critics of the Reformed) and never to have read Calvin. Whether this is true is open to debate but it illustrates his tense relations with the other electorates in the empire. Nevertheless, almost from the moment he became Elector Palatinate in 1559 he came under scrutiny by the other electors because of his religion. For his entire reign Heidelberg was under threat of potential invasion by Lutheran and Roman Catholic electors because the Reformed confession had no official status under the Peace of Augsburg (1555). The tensions created by the Pax Augustana were not relieved until 1648 and then only after the brutal and destructive Thirty-Years War. (1)

Now for a little story that illustrates the seriousness that these issues could take during this period. I'm sure that a good time was had by all... 

So far we have spoken of polemics in Heidelberg in several places (the Augustinian monastery, the university and the Church of the Holy Spirit) in the form of disputations, lectures, sermons and books, involving church and state, town and gown, and the loss of position and excommunication. Now we turn to a formal debate on the Lord’s Supper in Latin in Heidelberg between the Palatinate’s Reformed and Saxony’s strict Lutheran theologians in connection with, of all things, summer wedding festivities!

Frederick’s third daughter Dorothea Susanne’s union to strict Lutheran Johann Wilhelm of Saxe-Weimar might seem to have presented an occasion for irenics but instead people were invited to five days of polemics, the famous “Wedding Debates” (3-7 June, 1560). These debates at his daughter’s nuptials indicate how serious the second sacrament was for Frederick not only spiritually, ecclesiastically and politically but also within his own family. So far as we know, no one changed sides through the arguments and counter arguments but the Elector, more clearly than before, saw the errors of the strict Lutheran view, despite the arguments of, and pressure from, his Lutheran wife and in-laws. (2)

In the sixteenth century substantial changes were taking place, not only in the churches, but also in the schools. For a long time, formal education was predominantly a privilege of the rich. The teaching in these schools was done in Latin. However, as the sixteenth century progressed there was a growing awareness that education should not be restricted only to the Latin language or simply to the rich. As a result, many German schools were started. At these German schools both boys and girls had three main components in their curriculum: reading, writing, and... catechism!

Considering the religious and educational reform that was taking place in the Palatinate, it is not surprising that there was a demand for a good, solid catechism. Such a catechism could unify and solidify the religious reform, while at the same time fill a basic need within the curriculum taught to the young citizens – and future leaders – of the Palatinate. (4)

Therefore in 1562 Frederick III, prince of the house of Simmern, commission the writing and publication of the Heidelberg Catechism. The confession of the Gospel by the magisterial Protestant churches was clear enough but the picture on the ground was not so clear. (1)

The Heidelberg Catechism was intended to explain the Reformed faith to those who were unsure of what Reformed people believed and how the Reformed faith related to what they had learned before, Romanism and a version of Lutheranism.

Thus, the Heidelberg Catechism was produced in a controversial and turbulent context. The Reformation achievements, the recovery of the doctrine of justification by God’s free acceptance alone (sola gratia), through trust, resting, receiving alone (sola fide), and the principle of Scripture as the sole magisterial authority (sola Scriptura) were all under attack at the very moment the Reformed Church was being established in the Palatinate. The catechism was was written to preserve the gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on basis of the imputation of the finished work of Christ alone in a time when that gospel was being questioned. (1)

The Heidelberg Catechism was published in three editions with the third and final edition appearing in 1563. It was commissioned by Frederich III upon becoming the elector (governor) of the Palatinate in what we now know as Germany. Heidelberg was the capital city of the Palatinate (political district in the Holy Roman Empire). When he became elector,

Thus, Frederick gathered in Heidelberg a group of scholars and pastors to implement a Reformed Reformation. The two best known of this group were Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83) and Caspar Olevianus (1536-87). These two men were the principal authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, though it was edited by a committee. Frederick did not want it known who wrote the catechism because those responsible for the preparation of the Catechism were attacked severely in their own day and at great risk defended the Catechism. In 1566 some princes attacked Frederick at the imperial Diet of Augsburg insisting that the Catechism taught doctrines that were illegal in the empire. Frederick replied that he upheld the Augsburg Confession and therefore was in conformity with the laws of the empire. He also stated that he would rather die than abandon his Catechism. His position was upheld by the diet.

Frederick died in 1576 he was succeeded by his son Lewis. Lewis was a strict Lutheran and began to exile from his territory the Reformed leadership of the church. Olevianus was dismissed early and Ursinus was the last to go in 1578. Ursinus withdrew to the city of Neustadt, under the protection of Prince Casimir. There he spent the last years of his life teaching theology and lecturing on the Catechism. After his death in 1583 his student David Pareus gathered and edited his lectures for publication as Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. This commentary remains an invaluable resource for the study of the Catechism.

As a result we don’t know exactly who wrote which questions in every case. A great deal of research has been done to try to sort out the “source-criticism” of the catechism.

Source criticism of the catechism is difficult but some things are relatively clear. Ursinus was the major author of the catechism. He prepared two documents prior to the catechism, a Summa or a large catechism and a Catechismus Minor. There is a strong genetic relation between these two documents and the Heidelberger. They certainly drew from a number of existing Protestant catechisms including Luther’s small catechism, Calvin’s catechisms, and many others. Some nineteenth-century accounts of the catechism attributed much of it to Caspar Olevianus, but it appears now that he was primarily an editor and contributed perhaps the text of question and answer 80 to the third and final edition in 1563. There are similarities between the catechism and his popular catechetical work 1567 Vester Grund (Firm Foundation) but it is most likely that work was a commentary upon or an aid to the catechism rather than a source for it.

The first draft of the catechism was complete by 1562. It was revised by a synod in Heidelberg in January, 1563 and there the ministers subscribed it (i.e., they wrote their names underneath it as a sign of their affirmation of its doctrine). The first edition had some peculiarities. The questions and answers were not numbered. They were numbered in a subsequent edition. The third edition added the current question and answer 80, likely in response to the Council of Trent (which adopted canons and decrees on the mass in 1562) and that edition was translated into Latin, which became the version used in schools and by churches and schools across Europe and the British Isles. It was the Latin edition that was adopted by the Synod of Dort (1619). In the fourth edition, the division into 52 Lord’s Days was introduced. The catechism has been translated into English, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, and many other languages and has been used by millions of Christians to confess the faith since its publication.

Once the Heidelberg Catechism was complete, Frederick III attached his own, personal preface to the document. This preface sheds some interesting light on why he was so keen on having a top-quality catechism for his territory. In this preface, the Elector highlights the following:

  • Governing officials not only have the duty to maintain good order and peace in their territory, but “also and above all, constantly to admonish and lead them to devout knowledge and fear of the Almighty and His holy word of salvation.”

  • Although his predecessors had planted seeds of reform in the Palatinate, these efforts never resulted in the bountiful spiritual harvest that many were hoping for.

  • One key reason for the lackluster results was that insufficient attention was paid to the youth who were either “careless in respect to Christian doctrine,” “entirely without Christian instruction,” “unsystematically taught,” or “perplexed with irrelevant and needless questions”—in many cases, it might have been all four.

Therefore, in order to address the aforementioned problem—which, to be sure, was not restricted to the youth—Elector Frederick III commissioned “the preparation of a summary course of instruction or catechism of our Christian Religion, according to the word of God.”

This new catechism was to be used both in “churches and schools” by “Pastors and Schoolmasters.” In this way there would be consistency in teaching, rather than teachers and preachers who “adopt daily changes, or introduce erroneous doctrine.”

Thus, with the youth of his city and the future of Christ’s church at heart, Elector Frederick III commissioned the writing of the Heidelberg Catechism. With it he expressed the hope “that if our youth in early life are earnestly instructed and educated in the Word of God, it will please Almighty God also to grant reformation of public and private morals, and temporal and eternal welfare.” (4)

Structure and Style:

More coming soon!