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

Law/Gospel: A Staple in Reformation Theology

We’ve posted on this before, but it is something that needs to be said more than a few times: the law/gospel distinction is right there in the fabric of old-school Reformed theology.  Though some people don’t like it, won’t teach it, and think it is Lutheran, it is undeniable that a sharp law/gospel distinction is a classic Reformed teaching (Note: this is neither an OT/NT distinction nor a genre distinction, such as “law and prophets.”  This is an indicative/imperative distinction, a command/promise distinction.)  Here are a few examples.

Zacharius Ursinus (d.1583), one author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said the most basic division of the Catechism is “the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures” (p. 2 of his Commentary on the Catechism).  In fact, the Catechism is divided this way because Scripture is: “The law and gospel are the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein” (ibid.).   Ursinus continues, discussing in four points how there is “a very great difference” between the law and gospel (pp 104-5).  Ursinus says it is the duty of the church and pastor to very clearly distinguish between the law and the gospel (p. 288 & 572).  This means, I might add, that a good Reformation theologian is not going to muddy the waters by saying the whole Bible is law and the whole Bible is gospel, or that the law is good news, or that the gospel is law.

Casper Olevian (d. 1587) – a co-author of the Catechism – sounded exactly the same.  In a catechism he wrote (A Firm Foundation), Q/A 10 is all about the law/gospel distinction.  “What is the difference between the law and the gospel?”  Olevian answers by stating the law is the commands of God that we must perfectly keep or be cursed forever; it demands but doesn’t give ability (p. 9).  In the gospel, however “God does not demand but rather offers and gives us the righteousness that the law requires” (p. 10).  In the gospel, God – by grace through faith and not by law/works – grants a person forgiveness and righteousness in Christ (see also Q/A 8-9).  Click here for something similar from a later Heidelberger.

Moving out of Heidelberg to another Reformed theologian, Francis Turretin (d. 1687) talks about the difference between law and gospel very clearly in his Institutes, II.12.iii.vi.  The law, he says, commands and demands but does not give; the gospel is about salvation by a free gift, not legal obedience (See also II.12.iii.xvii and II.12.vii.xv).  Click here for more from Turretin.

Puritan Matthew Poole (d. 1679) said the exact same things as the above.  The law, he wrote, “only showed man his duty…but gave no strength or help by which he should do them; only cursing man….”  The gospel, however, “is the revelation of the Divine will, as to grace and mercy, as to remission of sin, and eternal life” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 2 Cor. 3.7-10).

Another Puritan, Thomas Watson (d. 1686), said the same: “the moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength… but the gospel gives strength; it bestows faith on the elect… (The Ten Commandments, 14).  The moral law “is a glass to show us our sins (ibid.). [Here is a fascinating law/gospel distinction by the Westminster Divines which had rightly to do with the covenant of works/grace discussion.]

The Canons of Dort (1618-19) also echo this use of the law (III/IV.5): “For man cannot obtain saving grace through the Decalogue, because, although it does expose the magnitude of his sin and increasingly convict him of his guilt, yet it does not offer a remedy or enable him to escape from his misery, and, indeed, weakened as it is by the flesh, leaves the offender under the curse.”  This is the Reformed confessional way to speak, following the HC “sin” section (LD 2-4).

On the German Reformed side of things, Otto Thelemann (19th century) echoes the above.  “The law teaches what we ought to be and what we should render to God; but it does not impart the strength to offer God what is due Him, nor does it indicate the way by which we might attain this ability.  On the other hand, the Gospel teaches in what way we may become such persons as the law demands.  … The law is a letter which killeth, and is a ministration of death.  The gospel is a ministration of life” (p. 60-61 in An Aid to the Heidelberg Catechism).

More could be added – many more.  One full Reformed book on this I need to read more of is John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel.  In the Treatise, Colquhoun says what Ursinus said:

If then a man cannot distinguish aright between the law and the gospel, he cannot rightly understand so much as a single article of divine truth.  If he does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel; and, on the other hand, if his view of the gospel is erroneous, his notions of the law cannot be right.”

To sum it up, it needs to be clear that this use of the law – the pedagogical use – was stressed in both Reformed and Lutheran circles (i.e. the sharp law/gospel distinction had to do with justification sola fide).  Also, it is true that the Reformed also had a “normative” use of the law, as is evident in the third part of the Heidelberg, the guide for Christian gratitude (the law as guide had to do with sanctification).  One can even find Luther[ans] speaking of the normative use, though he/they didn’t stress it as much as the pedagogical.  [For a review on the Reformed scholastic three uses of the law, see an earlier post.]

One more thing: the law/gospel distinction in Reformed theology has everything to do with the covenant of works/grace distinction.  Furthermore, this use of the law highlighted above has much to do with “saint and sinner at the same time.”  If one abandons the law/gospel distinction,  typically the doctrine of the covenants gets muddled and the “saint/sinner same time” teaching is weakened as well and everything becomes a sort of equivocal porridge.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Heidelberg Catechism: A Background and Sketch

For all you fellow Heidelbergers or church historians, this is a book you’ll want to get sooner than later: The Church’s Book of Comfort ed. Willem Van’t Spijker, trans. Gerrit Bilkes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009). The book covers the historical context of the HC – the events that lead up to it, and the events that follow it.  For example, chapters one and two talk about the Reformation in Germany and how it spread to the Lowlands, specifically the electors of the Palatinate.  In chapter two, we’re introduced to Elector Frederick III, who had to handle both the rowdy Lutherans and the hard-headed Calvinists (poor guy!).  Frederick III was the elector who called for a new catechism – the HC – which was written in 1562-3.

Here’s an excerpt from a letter that Frederick III wrote it to his son.  This gives us a great glimpse into one man behind the HC.

“I thank my dear God, who has taught me to pray, namely, the Lord’s Prayer.  When I say ‘Father of ours,’ or ‘Our Father who art in heaven,’ then I believe and know for sure that I am his child.  Since I am his child, I am also a brother of God’s Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the fellow heir of all those spiritual benefits that he has acquired for all his believers through his incarnation, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension into his spiritual kingdom.  No devil, hell, world, or any human being can take these away from me; I am as certain of this through faith as though I held them in my hands.  Let this be to me a true foundation, established on the cornerstone Jesus Christ, of whom Paul says in 1 Cor 3:11, ‘For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (p. 37-8).

Sounds a bit like Luther, a bit like the HC – the best of both worlds!  I’m very much looking forward to reading the rest of this book.  Stay tuned.  Also, if I may plug, be sure to visit Reformation Heritage Books if you’re interested in solid “old-school” stuff like this – they’ve been putting out some great stuff lately.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Catechetical and Confessional Piety

As a pastor who “signs on” to the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dort), I often hear other Christians say things like this to me:  “Well, that stuff worked back then, but all that doctrine stifles true Christian living.”  Or, “Our church used to use those things, but they are for the head, while biblical religion is for the heart.”  I’m sure many of you have either heard or thought some of the same things.

Of course, point well taken: rigid dogma has indeed resulted in cold Christian living, where true knowledge and true piety are split up.  However, the fault does not lie in the doctrines.  It is wrong to say that since some fifth and sixth (or tenth and eleventh!) generation Reformation Christians did not practice true piety, we should abandoned the Reformation confessions.  I would submit that the opposite is true: since some Reformation Christians do not practice what they preach, we better preach it better and more clearly!  Just to get the point across, let me say it another way: don’t blame our confessions for our lack of piety.

William Ames (1576-1633) is a good start to get “back into” the confessions, specifically the Heidelberg Catechism.  The level of orthodoxy and piety in this volume will sweep the reader away.  For example, in the first brief chapter Ames interprets Psalm 4.6-8 to explain man’s chief good (summum bonum) to be found “in God’s favor towards him.”  This is the solid comfort that Lord’s Day 1 hammers home.  Here are the five “lessons” he gives for this text, in relation to Lord’s Day 1.

Lesson One: The highest good ought to be considered and sought above all other things in our entire life.

Lesson Two: The highest good of people in this life cannot be obtained from earthly goods.

Lesson Three: Our true and highest good consists in the union and communion we have with God.

Lesson Four: The joy that believers gain from the communion that they have with God overcomes, by its own sweetness, all human delights and happiness.

Lesson Five: This joy and holy consolation convey a certain security to the consciences of the faithful.

Also, in a highly pastoral way,  Ames gives reasons and uses for each of these five lessons.  For example, he talks about this chief good of man to be a source of consolation, exhortation to the good, refutation of the world’s delights, admonition for our souls to look above, and as encouragement to us for our eternal future.

This is theology and piety at its finest: orthodoxy drips with piety, and piety drips with orthodoxy.   Reformation preaching and teaching would do well to strive for the balance.

Many thanks to the editors and translators of this new series (more to come!), and also to RHB for putting this out.

The above quotes taken from William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Olevian: Law, Gospel, and Justification

R. Scott Clark wrote a very solid piece on Caspar Olevian (one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) called Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005).  In this book, Clark discusses the main points of Olevian’s life as well as some of the high points of Olevian’s Reformation teaching (the Trinitarian doctrine of God and Federalist Christology as well as justification and sanctification – the double benefit of the covenant of grace).

Here’s a section from the chapter on justification.

“He [Olevian] began his definition of law by turning to creation.  The moral law (lex moralis) is written (inscripta) in the hearts of ‘all men’ in every time.  The law has been known from the time of Adam.  The Sinaitic law and the teaching of the patriarchs and prophets were only a re-publication and sealing of the same.  Its primary function is to prosecute sinners.  Because of its universality, no one is excusable and because of our primeval corruption no one is ‘able to be justified, i.e. able to obtain from God forgiveness of sins and eternal life, by their natural goodness and actions according to the law of nature.’  In our natural state, rather than making moral progress, we are more grossly contaminated by horrendous sin.

“‘At any event, the justice which can stand before God’s most righteous judgment ought to be perfect in all respects.’  ‘The law,’ however, ‘does not give righteousness, but requires it.’”

“The gospel promises, however, are equally ancient: the seed of the women will crush the head of the serpent.  The key to keeping law and gospel in proper order is to remember their respective purposes.  The purpose of the law was not to justify, but to drive sinners to Christ.  The purpose of the gospel was to justify and liberate sinners from sin and death.”

“Because law and gospel have different purposes, they perform distinct functions.  The law only condemns, and only the gospel justifies.”

Clark goes on to show how Olevian explained justification in a forensic way, as “a matter of God’s binding, legal declaration of the sinner’s justification, as opposed to justification by infused grace (gratia infusa) or justification through sanctification.  ‘Justification’ is ‘the pronouncement that we were absolved of our sins in the body of Christ.’”  The legal ground of our righteousness before God is Christ’s law-keeping, not ours.  Olevian clearly taught the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.  ‘The justified’ are those ‘clothed with Christ’s righteousness’ (induti iustitia Christi).  ‘Only Christ’s righteousness is true righteousness.’”

Quotes taken from pages 150-152; the quotes above within the quotes are Olevian’s words, mostly from his commentary on Romans.  Additional note: Reformation Heritage Books recently reprinted this book.  Click here for the link.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Regulative Principle of Prayer?

The historic Reformed position on public worship is well summarized in Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 96: we worship God in no other way “than he has commanded in his word.” That is, we worship God how he wants us to worship him, not how we order a Starbucks – what we’re in the mood for today.

More narrowly, this is applied to one part of worship – prayer. Calvin, in Institutes III.XX.49, wrote, “No man should ask for, expect, or demand, anything at all except what is included, by way of summary, in this prayer; and though the words may be utterly different, yet the sense ought not to vary. Thus all prayers in Scripture, and those which come forth from godly breasts, are certainly to be referred to it.”

No surprise here: the Heidelberg says the same thing. God commands us to pray for everything we need, body and soul, as embraced (or included) in the prayer Christ taught us (HC 118). Of course – the Scripture is the guide, rule, and norm for our prayers! This is one reason why many in the Reformed tradition suggest praying Psalms and other parts of Scripture, so we don’t get carried away by our own whims, fancies, and wants in prayer. In Calvin’s words, so we don’t “dream up” anything earthly about God, or “measure him by our small measure” or “conform his will to our emotions” (III.XX.40).

One more thing notable about Calvin and the HC on prayer is that they both follow the Lord’s Prayer so closely that they use the plural 99% of the time: Our Father…give us…. This doesn’t mean we always have to pray with other Christians in public, but it does mean we are always praying with the church for God’s glory first, our neighbor second, and then self (daily physical need makes up only around 1/10th of the Lord’s Prayer – and even it is corporate!).

Calvin is right: the Lord’s prayer “is in all respects so perfect that any extraneous or alien thing added to it, which cannot be related to it, is impious and unworthy to be approved by God” (III.XX.48).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Prayer as a Means of Grace?

The Westminster Standards (Presbyterian Confessions) and the Three Forms of Unity (Reformed Confessions) are so very close in so very many ways. One area that some have highlighted a difference is the point where the WCF calls prayer a means of grace while the Heidelberg does not go that far.

For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism says the outward and ordinary means that Christ uses to communicate his blessings include all his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer – all of these [his ordinances] are made effectual to the elect for their salvation (Q/A 154). The Heidelberg, a bit differently, says that prayer is the most important part of the thankfulness that God requires from us, and that God only gives grace and his Spirit to those who pray asking and thanking God for these gifts (Q/A 116). Prayer is in the third section of the Heidelberg, the “Christian living” or “gratitude” section and not in the word/sacraments section (the middle section on “grace” or “salvation”).

Though these differences should certainly not drive a wedge between the two confessions, it is interesting to think about. In his section on the means of grace in Reformed Dogmatics IV, Herman Bavinck is helpful. He said there is a certain sense in which the means of grace are broader, or wider, than just preaching and the sacraments: faith, conversion, struggles against sin, and prayer are included. However, it is better, noted Bavinck, to define the means of grace as objective, “external, humanly perceptible actions and signs that Christ has given his church and with which he has linked the communication of his grace” (RD IV.447-8). In other words, broadly speaking there are more than two means of grace, yet narrowly there are just two.

Bavinck used this “broad” and “narrow” concept in keeping with the Reformed scholastics. Richard Muller, in his excellent Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985), also notes this distinction. Under stricte (strictly or tightly), and late (loosely or generally), Muller said that the scholastics purposely and knowingly used definitions very precisely sometimes, while generally other times (p. 290). Perhaps this is helpful in our discussions of the means of grace. Were the Westminster divines speaking strictly or loosely? Would utilizing these distinctions help “harmonize” the two confessions?

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Mass: Has Rome Changed?

While studying Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 80 on how the Lord’s Supper differs from the Roman Catholic mass, I noticed that some say the last part of HC 80 is wrong. They argue that since Rome has changed her official position on the Mass, the last 1/2 of HC 80 should be lopped off. In order to keep this post short, I won’t quote the last part of HC 80 – you can find it on your own, I trust. The main issues are these: is Christ bodily present in the elements, is he re-presented in the elements, and should we worship the elements? [Note: re-presented here means "presented over again;" this is important, because Calvin, for example, said Christ is represented but not re-presented.]

Lets see what Rome says today. The following quotes are taken from Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995). As an additional note, then Cardinal (now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger was the chairman of this pope-commissioned group to work on the catechism (in 1986).

Part II, Article 3, para. II.1330 The Mass “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior…”

Part II. Article 3, para III.1333 “At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s body and blood.”

Part II, Article 3, para IV.1350 “…the bread and the wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood.”

Part II, Article 3, para IV.1353-4 “…by his [the Holy Spirit's] power they [bread and wine]…become the body and blood of Jesus Christ…” The institution narrative words “make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.”

Part II, Article 3, para V.1357 “Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present” when the bread and the wine “become” his body and blood.

Part II, Article 3, para V. 1364-7 In the Mass, “the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.” “The Eucharist is also a sacrifice.” “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross.” The same sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross is “now offered through the ministry of priests.”

Part II, Article 3, para V.1374 “In the most blessed Eucharist…the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” (emphasis in original).

Part II, Article 3, para V.1378 The people, during the liturgy of the Mass, “genuflect or bow deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.” “The Catholic church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.”

The “In Summary” section notes this (among others): “Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration.”

There are quite a few more phrases that are exactly like the above. Also, the Council of Trent (c. mid 16th century) is quoted no less than 8 times in this one section. Though I didn’t list it, the Catholic Catechism also discusses the Mass for the dead. Finally, I noticed in a recent Yakima Times article, that now the “in” thing in Roman churches (at least in Southern Washington) is to have the Mass in Latin again, because “it feels more historical and holy.”

Clearly, Rome has not changed her position on the Mass. HC Q/A 80 needs to stay. Its not exactly “Interfaith,” ECT, or PC material, but “denial of the one sacrifice of Christ” and “condemnable idolatry” still fit.

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

Imputation: Lusk or the Heidelberg Catechism?

You can’t have both.

Lusk: “Justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything. It does not force us to reify ‘righteousness’ into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books” (Richard Lusk, “A Response to ‘The Biblical Plan of Salvation’” in The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision: The Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision [Fort Lauderdale: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004], 142).

Now the HC, Q/A 60: “How are you right with God (i.e. justified/righteous)? Only by true faith in Jesus Christ…without any merit of mine, only by sheer grace, God grants and imputes to me the…righteousness…of Christ.”

I’ve bolded the key words under observation. These statements are completely at odds. One cannot honestly harmonize the two.

shane lems

sunnyside wa