Systematic Theology: In Catechism Form

 I just got this in the mail from Reformation Heritage Books (RHB): Essential Truths in the Heart of a Christian by Wilhlemus Schortinghuis.  (If you’re Dutch, that’s Nodige Waarheden in het Herte van een Christen)  Schortinghuis (the most Dutch Dutch name I’ve ever heard!) was a pastor in the Reformed churches of Holland in the early to mid 18th century.  He was at the tail end of what scholars call the ”Dutch Second Reformation” (Nadere Reformatie), which waned around the middle of the 18th century.  While it is true that Schortinguis wrote some very pietistic (in a negative sense) stuff, this book, Essential Truths, is quite in line with the orthodoxy of Reformed scholasticism before it.

Essential Truths is pretty much a very brief systematic theology in catechetical form, with proof-texts (citations, not the full verses) as part of the answers.  Below I’ve put a few examples of how this book is in line with Reformed orthodoxy (the examples also show the catechetical structure).

Part one talks about the knowledge of God.  ”In whom is the knowledge of God found fully, to a greater or lesser degree?”  A: “In God himself (1 Cor. 2:7), in Christ (Matt. 11:27), in the holy angels (Matt. 18.10), in the believer in heaven (2 Cor. 5.7), and on earth (2 Cor. 5.7).”  The scholastics talked about archetype and ectype (concerning knowledge); this is the catechetical brief way to talk about it.

Part 11 (after Creation, Providence, etc.) is about the Covenant of Works.  “What is the covenant of works?  The agreement of God with the righteous man in which God promised life and threatened death, with the stipulation of perfect obedience to his law.  If man met the stipulation, he would enjoy eternal life (Hos. 6:7; Job 31:33).”  Later, the question is asked: “Did man have the ability to fulfill these demands?  Yes, indeed; because he was created in God’s image (Gen. 1:31; Eccles. 7:29), he was perfectly good and completely upright.” 

Part 26 is Schortinghuis’ discussion of justification sola fide.  “How is a believing sinner justified?  Not because of the worth of his faith or because of his imperfect Christian obedience, but purely by grace, for the sake of Christ’s perfect atonement and intercession (Rom. 3:24-26), with faith only as an instrument (Rom. 5:1), and apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28).”  He also mentions that a believing sinner embraces by faith Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed to the sinner (Q/A 5). 

“Do not our good works contain some virtue that God nevertheless may want to reward?  No, because they do not answer the requirement of meritorious work, since eternal life is a gracious gift earned by Christ that God grants for his sake by grace (Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9).”

This has to do with the covenant of grace.  “What does God promise and demand in the covenant of grace?  He promises all the essential benefits here and especially for eternity.  He promises: ‘I shall be a God to you” (Jer. 31:33).  And he demands faith and conversion [repentance] (Acts 16:31; Ezek 33:11), both of which he promises to provide (Eph. 2:8, Ezek. 36:27).”  The conditions in the covenant of grace are met by God working in the heart of the elect.

While I’ll summarize them to keep the post brief, Schortinghuis also talks about other Reformed truths, including the regulative principle of worship (part 10, Q/A 4), the law as both a threatening command that shows sin and a “rule of thanksgiving” (part 10, Q/A 10), the visible/invisible church (part 39, Q/A 4), and the essence of saving faith as a receiving instrument which consists of knowledge, assent, and trust (part 24, Q/A 4, 6).

The catechism itself is only around 100 pages; it is not long and tedious.  In many ways it reflects the Heidelberg catechism only with a few more “application” type questions.  Or, to put it another way, it is sort of like a very brief summary of the other Wilhelmus’ (Wilhelmus a Brakel) systematic, The Christian’s Reasonable Service.  At the end of many sections, the question comes: “What does [the doctrine under observation] teach you personally?” 

In summary, while I hesitate to commend all of Schortinghuis’ works (most of them are in Dutch anyway), I do recommend this one as a great, clear, and concise snapshot of orthodox Dutch piety – practical Christian doctrine in Q/A format.  The translators, editor, and publisher deserves a hearty thanks!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Children’s Catechism in the Wake of the Reformation

This book, The Church’s Book of Comfort, gets more fascinating with each chapter.  I’ve read quite a few sources on the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) and surrounding circumstances, and for now I am putting this near the top of my “go to HC stuff” list.  Here’s another reason why.

Recently (before reading this book), I stumbled upon a kids version of the HC written around 1608 by H. Faukelius called “The Compendium of the Christian Religion for Those Who Seek Admission to the Lord’s Supper”  (the cool Dutch title is: Kort begrip der Christelijke Religie voor dei sich willen begeven tot des Heeren Heilig Avondmaal).  The Synod of Dort (1618-1619) advised that this compendium be used for the middle-age children.  The younger kids were to use the even shorter Hanenboekjes (Rooster Booklet) while the older kids were to use the HC itself (p. 134).

Actually, kids catechisms in the Lowlands, Germany, and elsewhere were quite popular in Reformed circles following the Reformation.  A few others were Micron’s Shorter Catechism and Brief Inquiry, Laski’s Larger Catechism, and St. Aldegonde’s Compendium (Kort Begrip), along with a few others (p. 140-144; 164-5, etc.).  Though classes and synods before the 1618-19 Synod of Dort didn’t always suggest the same kids’ catechism from the above list, many of them did in fact recommend each church use a kids’ catechism (cf. pages 163 ff).

Here’s a sample of one of the shorter and more polemical kids catechisms, namely, St. Aldegonde’s Compendium, which may rub us the wrong way in our age of “tolerance.”

Q: Where does this God dwell?
A: In heaven.

Q: Does he not dwell in the church of the papists?
A: No, he does not.

Q: Is the church of the papists then not God’s house?
A: No.

Q: Who then dwell in the church of the papists?
A: Idols.

Q: What are these idols?
A: Large dolls.

Q: What are they then?
A: Dumb blocks.

You’ve gotta hear the Dutch of the last two answers to really get the nearly comical tone: What are these idols? Groote Poppen. What are they then?  Stomme blocken. The Popish church is full of groote poppen and stomme blocken (say that out loud!). You wonder if a child chuckled when he answered!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Covenant of Works and the Three Forms of Unity

The Synod of Utrecht in 1905 wrote up several theological conclusions that had been discussed in Dutch Reformed churches in the preceding years.  In the second of these conclusions, by way of analogy, the covenant of works is mentioned.

The Synod discussed eternal justification, and said that just because the term is not used in our confessions, this does not mean it has to be rejected (then went on to discuss this term and concept).  Same thing goes for the covenant of works: just because the term is not used in  our confessions, it has since been adopted “through theological usage.”

Of course the Synod was not debating the covenant of works, but it explicitly said that it is well and good to use that term and teaching in conjunction with the Three Forms of Unity.  It was a synodical affirmation.

Here’s the historical picture.  In “Three-Forms Churches” in 1904, it was synodical and commonplace to discuss, defend, and teach the covenant of works as an orthodox way to read the confessions (see Bosma or Bavinck or Kuyper for individual examples).  However, in the 20’s and beyond it was questioned and denied in some of these same circles.  Why the step away from the “confessionalness” of the covenant of works after hundreds of years’ affirmation?  What happened in the years between 1904 and the 1920’s?

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Stubborn Dutchman and the Law/Gospel Distinction

Behind Berkhof and Bavinck’s law/gospel distinction stands another “B:” Brakel (d.1711; preacher to the Dutch in Rotterdam).   Here are a few of notes of his concerning the “essential difference between the moral law and the gospel.”

1) The law has been given to all mankind as the “sovereign, majestic, and sole Lawgiver.”  “The gospel, however, is the manifestation of God as being ‘merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth’ (Exo. 34.6), and does not pertain to all, but only to some.” Notice the Scholastic distinction of God the creator and God the redeemer lurking behind Brakel’s distinction.

2) “The law can be partially known by nature (Rom. 2.15), but the gospel can only be known by special revelation (Eph. 3.5).”

3) The “law is a condition of the covenant of works which promised salvation upon the perfect keeping of the law and knows no forgiveness (Rom 10.5, Mat. 19.17).  The gospel, however, is a declaration of the covenant of grace, promising believers forgiveness and salvation by Jesus Christ (Rom. 10.8-9).

4) The law “begets” the knowledge of sin in a sinner (Rom. 3.20), “confronts him with wrath (Rom. 4.15), and thus brings forth fear and trembling (Isa. 33.14).  The gospel, however, is the precious administration of the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1.16).  The gospel is the means whereby God calls men unto salvation.”

Of course, as a Heidelberger, Brakel notes that “the moral law must be viewed in a twofold sense:” 1) by its demands, by which it reveals the pefect conditions of the covenant of works, or 2) by its purpose, as having been “given to the church as a rule of life and as the standard of holiness.”

Quotes from The Christian’s Reasonable Service, I.I.192-3.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Canons/Synod of Dort: Back in Print

I can still hear the one and only voice of Rev. P. Y. De Jong and still see him preaching in his jet black Genevan robe while leaning a little to his left.  As a kid, I knew he was a herald of the Word by the way he spoke (no apologies – this IS the Word of God, so listen) and dressed (the robe told my young mind Rev. De Jong was not a businessman).  You’d say “preacher” and I’d think of P. Y.; actually, he still is burned in my mind as a paradigm preacher of the word.  So when I saw the republication of the book Rev. De Jong edited, Crisis in the Reformed Churches (Grandville: Reformed Fellowship, 2008), I ordered it immediately.  Now I can’t set it down.  Here’s why:

First, this book covers the historical situation of the Synod of Dort in a clear and concise way.  Second, we even learn about the heavy hitters at the Synod – for both the Remonstrants and the Reformed.  Third, this book covers the homiletical and pastoral aspects and outcome of the Synod and Canons.  Fourth, the men who wrote the chapters are heavy hitters themselves: De Jong, C. Van Til, John Murray, Klooster, Kistemaker, and so on.  Finally, this is “must read” because of the appendices - they include a timeline, biographical notes, the documents of the Remonstrants, a list of the delegates to the Synod, and, of course, the Canons of Dort themselves.

All in all, this book is a “mini library” on the Synod and Canons of Dort.  Really, you should not study, teach, or preach through these great doctrines without this book.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A High Point in Dutch Reformed Theology: Affirming the Covenant of Works

I pointed out in a previous post on Johannes Vanderkemp (c. 1700) that “old-school” Dutch Reformed theology had a robust view of the Covenant of Works.  There was another “huge” Dutch theologian writing at that same time: Wilhelmus a Brakel.  In 1700, he published his massive dogmatics, The Christian’s Reasonable Service.  In his day and following, a Brakel was a giant.  In the 18th century alone, this 4-volume dogmatics was reprinted 20 times! 

So what does he say about the Covenant of Works? 

“Acquaintance with this covenant is of the greatest importance, for whoever errs here or denies the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus.  Such a person will very readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect.  This is to be observed with several parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, also deny the covenant of works.  Conversely, whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well.”

 Clarity. Precision.  No equivocation or ambiguity.  Outstanding!

Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books), 355.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Kuyper on Children and the Lord’s Supper

In his helpful little booklet, The Implications of Public Confessions (trans. Henry Zylstra, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1934]), Abraham Kuyper wrote about the aspects of public confession of faith.  In it he commented on baptized children and the Lord’s Supper: should kids partake?

An infant “is not yet qualified to receive the sacrament of nourishment.  We must remember that the sacrament of the holy supper requires that only he may partake of it who has made his confession and his deeds a matter of personally appreciated responsibility.  Hence, it is inevitable that some years must elapse between these two sacraments in the life of every individual; as many years, in fact, as are required to make his confession and his approach to the Lord’s table a morally responsible action.  The intervening time may not be longer than that and it may not be shorter….”

“The number of those intervening years is not the same for all.  Some are qualified for public confession at sixteen, others at twenty-three years of age….  Irrespective, however, of whether the holy supper be divided from baptism by sixteen years or by twenty-three, the close relationship between the two remains the same.  Throughout those years baptism sounds the plea: Seek the Lord’s holy supper.”

See pages 16-17 for the above quote.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 2 and the Covenant of Works

Lord’s Day two from the HC asks three questions: How do you come to know your misery?  What does the law of God require of us? and Can you keep all these things perfectly? 

What would a solid Reformed Dutch pastor from around 1700 mention in a sermon with these themes?  The covenant of works, among other things.  Here are a few quotes from Johannes Vanderkemp (d. 1718), translated from the Dutch in 1810.

“This law hath a respect also to the covenant of works, as the condition of it, which God demanded of man, with a promise of life, and a threatening of death….”

Concerning Gen 2.17, Vanderkemp preaches, it “can be considered only as a probationary command whereby Adam was to be proved for some time, whether he would continue good, or become evil, and whether he would love God more than the creature, or the creature more than God; as the Savior commanded that presumptuous young man to ’sell all his goods, and give to the poor,’ that he might prove him, whether he had, as he pretended, truly ‘kept the whole law from his youth up’ Matt 19.17, 22.”

“This demand God enforced with the promise of life, that he might encourage Adam to observe it perfectly: ‘For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man who does those things shall live by them,’ as Paul explains it, Rom. 5.5, which life was sealed to him by the tree of life.  By this life we must understand not only corporal and spiritual, but eternal life: and that not only in Paradise, but also in heaven itself, into which he should be admitted after the time of his probation.  For whatever the elect sinner obtains by Christ; he lost by Adam, and therefore also everlasting life in heaven.”

Later on, he says, “All the parts of the covenant of works are opposed to all the parts of the covenant of grace, as ‘Adam and Christ’ Rom 5, 1 Cor 15, ‘Works and grace,’ Rom 6.14, 11.6 ‘The law of works and the law of faith,’ Rom 3.27, 28, see also Rom 7.3,4.”

“This is the sense in which the catechism uses the word nature here (Q/A 5); for it speaks of a man who lives yet under the broken covenant of works, who is a ‘child of wrath by nature,’ Eph 2.3….”

Johannes Vanderkemp, The Christian Entirely the Property of Christ, in Life and Death, Exhibited in Fifty-three Sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism  trans. John M. Harlingen, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1997), 22-27. 

shane lems

sunnyside wa

G.H. Kersten on the Covenant of Works

Though probably not one of the top 10 most popular books on Reformed Dogmatics, G. H. Kersten (d. 1948; an influential leader early in the history of the Netherlands Reformed Church [the Gereformeerde Gemeenten]) wrote a helpful two volume work, Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed Doctrine trans. J. R. Beeke and J. C. Weststrate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).  This work was completed by Kersten in 1947.  Though I haven’t yet read both volumes (which are not too tedious or lengthy), I noticed that the section on the Covenant of Works sounds just like an earlier Dutchman, W. a Brakel (d. 1711) (and, of course, as I showed earlier, Bavinck and Kuyper).  This robust affirmation of the CoW is found throughout Dutch Reformed history:

“The right doctrine of the covenants is of very great significance for the church, both of the covenant of works and of the covenant of grace, as was very clearly evident recently when that covenant-enervating [weakening, debilitating] doctrine was again brought to the fore [perhaps Kersten is referring to Schilder here].  Both of these covenants of which Scripture speaks are in an unbreakable relationship to each other.  Who then will rightly understand the covenant of grace if he does not know the covenant of works?  Who can rightly speak of Christ that does not teach the truth about Adam?”

More: “From olden days all the Reformed have seen the great significance of the pure doctrine of the covenants, and stressed it with all their power.”

Both quotes taken from volume I, page 192. 

shane lems

sunnyside wa