The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Heidelberg Catechism

As far as Reformed Christian documents are concerned how important is the Heidelberg Catechism?

Do all strict Reformed churches acknowledge/recognize this document (Presbyterian Reformed, Baptist Reformed, etc.)?

Are we lacking anything, in an intellectual sense, if we are unfarmiliar with it?

Are there any long time posters here who are either unfamiliar with it or in any way reject it or find fault with it?

http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html

AC,

The Heidelberg Catechism is an excellent document IF used rightly. I find little within the catechism itself to object to. But I do object to using the catechism to train children and non-confessing individuals of a church. I believe it should be used to catechise professing members only. Why? Because it is written from the perspective of a believer and his/her profession of faith. This is certainly an obvious fact even from the very first Q & A for Lord's Day 1:

So, the entire document is an expression of one who already has faith where the grace of God has been given to the believer and thus all the benefits of Christ's atonement are applied.

In contrast, the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms are written from a third-party perspective which is far more applicable to both believers/members and non-members/unbelievers.

In His grace,

Interesting,

Yeah, it definitely is written from an experiential POV.

It may be a good compliment to some of the other Reformed documents (westiminster, dordt) - but may not stand on it's own too well - becasue like you said it's kinda leaving the unconverted out of the loop.....

...but it may set a good example of what this 'experience' is truly about.

Presbyterians do not use the HC as its doctrinal standard when examining officers. They only use the Westminster Confession of Faith. Though they hold the HC in high regard.

From what I gather, the Reformed denoms use the Three Forms of Unity which includes the HC, Belgiac and Dordt. In my understanding the Reformed Baptist uses the London Confession.

Yeah, my church adheres to the 3 forms of unity but to be honest I'm much more familiar with the Westminster than the Belgic - as far as confessions go.

AC,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> I agree that the HC is a good compliment as are all the historic Reformation confessions and catechisms. For example, the "Canons of Dordt" are extremely important, not only from a historical perspective but doctrinally due to the fact that they address a specific and most important issue, re: soteriology. Personally, I like them all as they cover a broad spectrum and each has its own uniqueness which are useful in various situations. Unlike the current trend, I think one would be hard-pressed to improve upon them. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

I'd like to ask you a question (and to anyone else who cares to answer).

It's regarding M-D-G as featured in the HC.

Do you believe the misery part, if overemphasized (in teaching and/or expereince) can become a hinderance that may impede true joy & comfort of being a child of God.

My previous minister - we are now without one - was heavily influenced by the works of JC Philpot (as you probably know he was a real Fire & Brimstone kind of guy - which definitely has it's place don't get me wrong) but I'm wondering if preachers like Philpot took the misery aspect of experience too far.

Personally,

I don't know if I'm saved so maybe these questions are presumptious on my part. There are reasons why I think I am but for now I'm still waiting on the Lord to clarify it for me.

thanks!!!

AC,

Yes, I believe the M-G-D subdivisions in the Heidelberg are legitimate and necessary to understand. One doesn't seek deliverance until misery, to some degree (aka: conviction of sin) is known in one's soul. However, "hyper's" like Philpot seem to have gone "over the edge" in some aspects of their ministry and this just happens to be one of them. Dutch Pietists share the same error and are painfully guilty of promoting a morbid introspection. When one analyzes some of these teachings it basically amounts to diminishing the importance of faith and a tendency to make "sorrow" a work. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> For some who have sat under this type of "misery" preaching, assurance is that "brass ring" which will never be grasped. In fact, to even suggest that you have assurance to some of these poor folks, is tantamount to blaspheme. I remember trying to counsel and comfort an elderly Dutch woman who was caught in this insidious trap and who mourned constantly over her alleged unregenerate heart. She insisted that she had prayed to God for 70 years to give her a new heart so that she could believe on Christ.

Have you read either of these:

- Faith and Assurance, by J.C. Ryle
- Assurance: How We Know We Know Christ, by Dr. John H. Gerstner

In His grace,

Very interesting,

What do you think of the idea that true believers experience their hell on earth in this life - I'm thinking that's true for a certain duration of time (a mark of Misery?) but that the saved would not be left at that point for an extended period of time (i know everybody's experience is different).


This topic leads me to another thought - how culture plays a part in our experience - some cultures are more emotional than others or may have more of an outward, visible expression of joy and pain, etc. I think of African Americans - although I don't want to generalize!

On a similar note, there's nothing more interesting than sticking a loud mouth Italian (like me) with a bunch of Dutch conservatives <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim,

thanks for those links!!! They were very helpful!!!

It seems like there is a real fine line between -

knowing you're saved, thinking you may be and being presumptuous

having assurance, having hope, having doubts and having false hope

knowing doctrine, knowing apologetics and actually knowing God

That "hell on earth" phrase is definitely unrelated to a Christian's "misery" referred to in the Heidelberg Catechism. "Hell on earth" is a pagan phrase used to denote one's unhappiness, trials and tribulations that are providentially brought about and controlled by God, although assuredly, the world would reject that truth. What the phrase is mostly referring to is that which happens outwardly, and perhaps the ensuing emotional stress which accompanies such things, e.g., poverty, disease, bigotry, etc. However, the "misery" of which the Heidelberg and the Bible speaks about is inward; a spiritual realization of one's own depravity and sinfulness. This we often speak of as "conviction of sin". It is to know one's own black heart and God's wrath due to our willful rebellion and disobedience. It is also to know one's utter helplessness in being able to remedy the situation and the hopelessness of it lest God should show mercy and bestow His immeasurable grace.

I do not find in Scripture anywhere that the elect are left in a state of "misery" for any length of time. In fact, this "misery" comes immediately at the moment of regeneration when the soul is awakened and comprehends spiritual things. But, at the same time that conviction of sin is experienced that need for reconciliation with God, the loveliness of Christ and His willingness and sufficiency to cleanse us from sin thus reconciling us with God is also realized. Thus conversion follows regeneration in a very short time frame. However, it is not unusual for a believer who has been united to Christ by faith and thus has "peace with God" and the joy of knowing that NOTHING can separate him/her from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:35-39) to also experience those outward and inward trials and tribulations. (2Tim 3:10-12; Heb 12:4-13)

Again, we must distinguish between the influence of culture in regard to one's "personality traits", which also differ from individual to individual with the inner working of the Spirit of God upon the heart. One can feel great sorrow but of a worldly kind compared to one who has been smitten by the Spirit of God, that sorrow which leads to repentance. (2Cor 7:8-10) Although it will undoubtedly vary in degree for various reasons, conviction of sin (misery) will be experienced by all upon and within whom the Spirit works regardless of one's natural demeanor or cultural background. It is this conviction of sin which drives a sinner to Christ and without which there is no salvation, for God makes no exceptions as to how He works.

In His grace,

ok,

thanks for clarifying all that - makes sense!

One more question about the experience of one whom is saved...

would you agree that they walk as a pilgrim on this earth, a stranger to this world and it's pleasures as they await their true home in Heaven.

Not that there is no comfort in surrounding oneself with friends/loved ones (especially other believers), favorite places, etc. - but there is the knowledge that all these things are temporal. While true peace and comfort is provided by what is spiritual & eternal.

Yes?

AC,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> I would say you summed it up quite adequately. As our Lord said, we are those who live in the world but are not of the world. This is not to say that immediately after regeneration and conversion, the believer is a perfect "saint", i.e., he lives perfectly before God. If only that were true, eh? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> To the contrary, the Christian's life is one of constant struggle; putting off the old man and putting on the new man which is being renewed in the image of Christ. No doubt, you know we call that life-long path, Sanctification, which can be quite painful at times.

There is a marvelous tome written by William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armor, which is marvelous reading. Needless to say, most just looking at the size of that volume are scared away from reading it. There are some modern versions available however, which takes some of the sense of being overwhelmed by its size. And, I'm just now finishing reading an introduction to that volume which is great and far less in size. It is The Embattled Christian: William Gurnall and the Puritan View of Spiritual Warfare, by Bryan Zacharias and published by The Banner of Truth Trust. It's a small paperback of only 154 pages. You might find it edifying to pickup a copy for yourself. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

There are also some jewels on The Highway as well, for example,

- The Marks and Blessings of Christ's Sheep
- The Improvement of Affliction
- The Inward Experience of Believers
- Holding Christ Fast

- On Keeping the Heart

- A Divine Cordial

- Laboring and Heavy Laden Sinners Promised Rest

In His grace,

AC,

I am coming into this from a slightly different angle, having used the Heidelberg Catechism for a number of years in a class of men in a residential discipleship program. The men share only one thing in common, a willingness to be taught basic Christian doctrine in the context of a disciplined environment. Conversation and subsequent experience indicate them to be a mix of believers and unbelievers, with both groups ranging in Christian training from nil to badly-taught (Catholicism and Word-Faith being 2 main influences) to well-taught but badly received.

Although what has been said in this thread about the pastoral nature of HC and its applicability to believers is true, I always elaborate on each question, as in, "If you have true saving faith in Christ, this ... is true of you; these benefits of Christ ... are yours; these responses of gratitude ... will be manifested in your life. But if your hope is not in Christ, this ... is not true of you; these benefits of Christ ... are not yours; there will be none of these fruits of gratitude ... in your life." And because it is a shifting population--almost no one ever sits though the whole year--that distinction provides opportunity to present the Gospel again. So I see it being used as a wonderful springboard for both evangelism and strengthening of the saints, as long as the catechiser is able to get to the heart of the matter.

One last thing, AC. I assume your M-D-G is Misery-Deliverance-Gratitude, right? I have heard the sections referred to several other ways, primarily Guilt-Grace-Gratitude. It sounds like your former pastor may have mistaught Misery/Guilt by over-emphasizing its purely subjective aspects, ie the experience/sensations/awareness of my state of guilt/misery. While it is true that a saving-grace-accompanying confession of sin must acknowledge real, personal, particular, wrath-deserving offense against the thrice-Holy, the authors of HC used the term Misery/Guilt in an objective sense, that is:

By virtue of my participation in Adam's sin and my own having broken and not kept God's holy law, I am in a state of misery/guilt, cut off from the love of God and subject to all His righteous anger--regardless of how intensely I experience the consequences that state of misery in my experience.

While that truth must be personalized, it will not provoke the same form or degree of subjective, internalized sensations of misery in different individuals.

For those of us of an introspective bent, it can actually be very self-absorbing to attempt to self-produce sensations of misery. It can also be terrifying because the Holy Spirit will not let us rest upon mere sensation as a ground of faith.

Rather, true saving faith sees our misery and guilt in one place--in Christ, and Him crucified--and knows that His sufferings, alone, though deserved by me, will never be borne by me. And there our faith returns, and rests, and remains, having: