Calvin' Catechism

Amazing Grace · #1 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 10:04 AM

Does anyone know why those under the umbrella of "reformed" never put any of Calvin's Catechism or treatiste's as their forms of unity?

Guido's Brother · #2 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 01:07 PM

I just read this interesting article by Ronald Cammenga in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, "The Homiletical Use of the Heidelberg Catechism: An Examination of the Practice of Systematic Preaching of the Heidelberg Catechism in the Dutch Reformed Tradition." Cammenga writes:

"After the Heidelberg Catechism made its appearance, some ministers still preferred to use other catechisms in their preaching, as for example, the Catechism of Geneva. The Synod of Emden, 1571, deemed it fitting that in the French-speaking congregations, the so-called Walloon churches, the Catechism of Geneva would be taught; whereas in the Dutch-speaking churches, instruction would be given in the Heidelberg Catechism. It further declared that 'if there are any other churches that use another form of catechism conformable to the Word of God, they shall not be forced to change.' Over time the Heidelberg Catechism supplanted the other catechisms that were used for preaching. The Heidelberg Catechism won the day largely because of its warm, personal character, as well as its superior organization. When the Synod of The Hague made Heidelberg Catechism preaching a requirement in 1586, it was only officially sanctioning a practice that was widespread in the Dutch churches." (pp.7-8)

Excellent article, by the way. The PRTJ is a free periodical. You can subscribe by dropping a note to the editor, cammenga@prca.org

VirginiaHuguenot · #3 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 01:27 PM

Chad Van Dixhoorn notes the following in connection with Calvin's Catechism as reasons why the Westminster Catechisms were needed:

Quote:

Having outlined the historical purpose of the Larger Catechism, it still seems appropriate to ask why the Catechism had to be written. After all, respected teachers in Britain had composed good catechisms; Calvin’s catechism was in the bookstores and so was the Heidelberg Catechism. Why could the Assemblymen not agree to use one of these catechisms for purposes of unity and instruction?

One answer has to do with the structure or format of earlier catechisms that the majority of Westminster divines did not like. In the eighth edition of A Brief and Easie Explanation of the Shorter Catechism, a young divine named John Wallis, explains the Assembly’s unique method in setting up the catechism: “The Assembly was careful that all the Answers might be entire sentences by themselves, without depending for their sense upon the foregoing Question, being indeed so many distinct Aphorisms, containing briefly the grounds of Christian Religion.” One benefit of this structure, in Wallis’s view,

Quote:

is that the learner is not necessitated to charge his memory with the Questions, that he may understand the Answer [sic]; nor is the like danger, as in many other Catechisms, of confounding the understanding by misapplying the Answer to a wrong Question. Their Questions also are so framed, that any one of them may be asked singly and distinctly, without dependance on the Question foregoing.14

Thus the Westminster Assembly’s catechisms were intended to have a unique structure.

Certainly Wallis was not exaggerating when he mentions that “many” of the catechisms contained answers that only made sense with a question, or even a series of questions. All of the main catechisms of the day required the user to memorize both question and answer in order to grasp the biblical doctrines of the catechism. Frequently one had to memorize a whole series of questions and answers, in order to grasp the doctrine under discussion. Take, for example, a series of questions early in Calvin’s Catechism:

Quote:

Minister: To consider these things in order, and explain them more fully — what is the first point?

Child: To rely upon God.

Minister: How can we do that?

Child: First by knowing him as almighty and perfectly good.

Minister: Is this enough?

Child: No.

Minister: Why?

Child: Because we are unworthy that he should show his power in helping us, or employ his goodness toward us.15

The content of the catechism is excellent, but the questions and answers, indeed, this entire section, requires knowledge of a long series of questions — a system hardly useful for memorization.
...
SCRIPTURE ALONE

Avoiding the Apostles’ Creed has given both of the Westminster Catechisms two strengths. First, the catechisms are based explicitly on Scripture, which is consistent with the position found in the first chapter of the Confession: All our doctrine comes from Scripture alone. Second, every catechism that uses the Apostles’ Creed reflects one of the weaknesses of the Creed — there is no mention of the importance of Christ’s life.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST

This is very important. The Apostles’ Creed speaks of “Jesus Christ” who “was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary” — and what is the next thing that is said? He “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.” The Heidelberg Catechisms, following the Creed, also moves right from Christ’s birth to his death. A similar sequence characterizes Craig’s Catechism or the New Catechism, the latter written during the time of the Westminster Assembly.20

Calvin actually notes this jump in the Creed between the birth and death of Christ and asks in question fifty-five of his catechism: “Why do you go immediately from His birth to His death, passing over the whole history of His life?” While this observation on his part is helpful, his answer is unusually disappointing: “Because nothing is said here about what belongs properly to the substance of our redemption.”21 This is rather shocking, particularly from Calvin. Christ’s life has a great deal to do with our salvation: he spent his life fulfilling all righteousness; he kept the law which the first Adam broke. It is because of Jesus’ active, life-long obedience that God the Father sees us as righteous in Christ. While Calvin clarified this at a later point in his life, his catechism, at least in this regard, remained inadequate.22

14. John Wallis, A Brief and Easie Explanation of the Shorter Catechism Presented by the Assembly of Divines in Westminster, to both Houses of Parliament, and By them Approved. Wherein the Meanest Capacities may in a Speedy and Easie way be Brought to Understand the Principles of Religion, in Imitation of a Catechism, formerly published by Master Herbert Palmer, B. D. and late Master of Queens College (eighth ed., London: for Jane Underhill, 1662), preface. I am grateful to Jason M. Rampelt for bringing this preface to my attention in conversation.

15. “Calvin’s Geneva Catechism,” in T. F. Torrance’s The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Churches (London: James Clarke, 1959), 6.

20. A useful reference, at least with regard to the text of various catechisms is T. E Torrance’s The School of Faith. Torrance’s lengthy introduction is less helpful; he approaches his material with twentieth-century Barthian questions quite foreign to his sixteenth and seventeenth-century subjects.

21. See School of Faith, 13.

22. The Catechism may only be the midpoint of a development in Calvin’s thought on this issue. The first edition of Calvin’s Institutes, printed in Basel in 1536, does not recognize the Creed’s jump from Christ’s birth to death (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated and edited by Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 50-55. The Catechism (1541) mentions the Creed’s move and makes the above observation. The final edition of Calvin’s Institutes (1559) does recognize, to a greater degree, the importance of Christ’s active obedience. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Library of Christian Classics ed., vol. XXI. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), II:xvi:5. I was too critical of Calvin in the popular version of this article. Since that time I have noted this apparent development and read R. A. Peterson’s brief discussion of active obedience in Calvin’s commentaries. In addition, Richard B. Gaffin Jr. pointed out in conversation that Francis Turretin, no mean Calvin scholar, holds this passage in the Calvin as an adequate treatment of Christ’s active obedience. For R. A. Peterson’s discussion, see his Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement (Madison, New Jersey: Drew University, Ph. D. Diss., 1980), 83-85. For Turretin, see his Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Vol. 2. Edited by James T. Dennison. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R, 1994), 14:13:xxii:454-55.

Guido's Brother · #4 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Avoiding the Apostles’ Creed has given both of the Westminster Catechisms two strengths. First, the catechisms are based explicitly on Scripture, which is consistent with the position found in the first chapter of the Confession: All our doctrine comes from Scripture alone. Second, every catechism that uses the Apostles’ Creed reflects one of the weaknesses of the Creed — there is no mention of the importance of Christ’s life.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST

This is very important. The Apostles’ Creed speaks of “Jesus Christ” who “was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary” — and what is the next thing that is said? He “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.” The Heidelberg Catechisms, following the Creed, also moves right from Christ’s birth to his death.

I don't think that's a fair statement about the Heidelberg Catechism. Answer 37:

"During all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end, Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the whole human race."

Christ's perfect life of obedience appears elsewhere in the Catechism too, for instance in Lord's Day 23.

VirginiaHuguenot · #5 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:00 PM

Van Dixhoorn goes on to allude to WLC 48 which is a question and answer specifically focused on Christ's earthly life

Quote:

Q48: How did Christ humble himself in his life?
A48: Christ humbled himself in his life, by subjecting himself to the law,[1] which he perfectly fulfilled;[2] and by conflicting with the indignities of the world,[3] temptations of Satan,[4] and infirmities in his flesh, whether common to the nature of man, or particularly accompanying that his low condition.[5]

1. Gal. 4:4
2. Matt. 5:17; Rom. 5:19
3. Psa. 22:6; Heb. 12:2-3
4. Matt. 4:1-12; Luke 4:13
5. Heb. 2:17-18; 4:15; Isa. 52:13-14

whereas HC 37 says nothing specific about Christ's earthly life and does skip right to His sufferings, which is Van Dixhoorn's point.

I will balance that point with a previous observation of my own:

Quote:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

I read a comparison chart which looked the doctrinal emphases of Calvin's Genevan Catechism, the HC, the WSC and the WLC recently (all of which have a different number of questions and answers). It was interesting to see that 24% of the HC is devoted to the person and work of Christ compared to 13% of the WLC. And 18% of the HC is devoted to the law of God while 30% of the WLC covers that topic. And just 4% of the HC is devoted to the doctrine of the church while 13% of the WLC addresses that topic. These emphases complement one another as a whole.

Edited on 12-12-2005 VirginiaHuguenot
...
The chart that I referenced appears in the introduction to J.G. Vos' The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, edited by G.I. Williamson, which is entitled An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism by W. Robert Godfrey. This piece also appeared as "The Westminster Larger Catechism," chapter 6 in To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, edited by John L. Carson and David W. Hall.

Posted on 20-12-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot

Amazing Grace · #6 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Chad Van Dixhoorn notes the following in connection with Calvin's Catechism as reasons why the Westminster Catechisms were needed:

Quote:

Having outlined the historical purpose of the Larger Catechism, it still seems appropriate to ask why the Catechism had to be written. After all, respected teachers in Britain had composed good catechisms; Calvin’s catechism was in the bookstores and so was the Heidelberg Catechism. Why could the Assemblymen not agree to use one of these catechisms for purposes of unity and instruction?

One answer has to do with the structure or format of earlier catechisms that the majority of Westminster divines did not like. In the eighth edition of A Brief and Easie Explanation of the Shorter Catechism, a young divine named John Wallis, explains the Assembly’s unique method in setting up the catechism: “The Assembly was careful that all the Answers might be entire sentences by themselves, without depending for their sense upon the foregoing Question, being indeed so many distinct Aphorisms, containing briefly the grounds of Christian Religion.” One benefit of this structure, in Wallis’s view,

Quote:

is that the learner is not necessitated to charge his memory with the Questions, that he may understand the Answer [sic]; nor is the like danger, as in many other Catechisms, of confounding the understanding by misapplying the Answer to a wrong Question. Their Questions also are so framed, that any one of them may be asked singly and distinctly, without dependance on the Question foregoing.14

Thus the Westminster Assembly’s catechisms were intended to have a unique structure.

Certainly Wallis was not exaggerating when he mentions that “many” of the catechisms contained answers that only made sense with a question, or even a series of questions. All of the main catechisms of the day required the user to memorize both question and answer in order to grasp the biblical doctrines of the catechism. Frequently one had to memorize a whole series of questions and answers, in order to grasp the doctrine under discussion. Take, for example, a series of questions early in Calvin’s Catechism:

Quote:

Minister: To consider these things in order, and explain them more fully — what is the first point?

Child: To rely upon God.

Minister: How can we do that?

Child: First by knowing him as almighty and perfectly good.

Minister: Is this enough?

Child: No.

Minister: Why?

Child: Because we are unworthy that he should show his power in helping us, or employ his goodness toward us.15

The content of the catechism is excellent, but the questions and answers, indeed, this entire section, requires knowledge of a long series of questions — a system hardly useful for memorization.
...
SCRIPTURE ALONE

Avoiding the Apostles’ Creed has given both of the Westminster Catechisms two strengths. First, the catechisms are based explicitly on Scripture, which is consistent with the position found in the first chapter of the Confession: All our doctrine comes from Scripture alone. Second, every catechism that uses the Apostles’ Creed reflects one of the weaknesses of the Creed — there is no mention of the importance of Christ’s life.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST

This is very important. The Apostles’ Creed speaks of “Jesus Christ” who “was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary” — and what is the next thing that is said? He “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried.” The Heidelberg Catechisms, following the Creed, also moves right from Christ’s birth to his death. A similar sequence characterizes Craig’s Catechism or the New Catechism, the latter written during the time of the Westminster Assembly.20

Calvin actually notes this jump in the Creed between the birth and death of Christ and asks in question fifty-five of his catechism: “Why do you go immediately from His birth to His death, passing over the whole history of His life?” While this observation on his part is helpful, his answer is unusually disappointing: “Because nothing is said here about what belongs properly to the substance of our redemption.”21 This is rather shocking, particularly from Calvin. Christ’s life has a great deal to do with our salvation: he spent his life fulfilling all righteousness; he kept the law which the first Adam broke. It is because of Jesus’ active, life-long obedience that God the Father sees us as righteous in Christ. While Calvin clarified this at a later point in his life, his catechism, at least in this regard, remained inadequate.22

14. John Wallis, A Brief and Easie Explanation of the Shorter Catechism Presented by the Assembly of Divines in Westminster, to both Houses of Parliament, and By them Approved. Wherein the Meanest Capacities may in a Speedy and Easie way be Brought to Understand the Principles of Religion, in Imitation of a Catechism, formerly published by Master Herbert Palmer, B. D. and late Master of Queens College (eighth ed., London: for Jane Underhill, 1662), preface. I am grateful to Jason M. Rampelt for bringing this preface to my attention in conversation.

15. “Calvin’s Geneva Catechism,” in T. F. Torrance’s The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Churches (London: James Clarke, 1959), 6.

20. A useful reference, at least with regard to the text of various catechisms is T. E Torrance’s The School of Faith. Torrance’s lengthy introduction is less helpful; he approaches his material with twentieth-century Barthian questions quite foreign to his sixteenth and seventeenth-century subjects.

21. See School of Faith, 13.

22. The Catechism may only be the midpoint of a development in Calvin’s thought on this issue. The first edition of Calvin’s Institutes, printed in Basel in 1536, does not recognize the Creed’s jump from Christ’s birth to death (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated and edited by Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 50-55. The Catechism (1541) mentions the Creed’s move and makes the above observation. The final edition of Calvin’s Institutes (1559) does recognize, to a greater degree, the importance of Christ’s active obedience. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Library of Christian Classics ed., vol. XXI. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), II:xvi:5. I was too critical of Calvin in the popular version of this article. Since that time I have noted this apparent development and read R. A. Peterson’s brief discussion of active obedience in Calvin’s commentaries. In addition, Richard B. Gaffin Jr. pointed out in conversation that Francis Turretin, no mean Calvin scholar, holds this passage in the Calvin as an adequate treatment of Christ’s active obedience. For R. A. Peterson’s discussion, see his Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement (Madison, New Jersey: Drew University, Ph. D. Diss., 1980), 83-85. For Turretin, see his Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Vol. 2. Edited by James T. Dennison. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R, 1994), 14:13:xxii:454-55.

Brother Andrew:

My intention is not to pit one against the other. IT is just ironic that we are labeled calvinists, yet use none of his writings in our 3FU or Catechisms.

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Brother Andrew:

My intention is not to pit one against the other. IT is just ironic that we are labeled calvinists, yet use none of his writings in our 3FU or Catechisms.

Nor is that my intention (to pit one against another). But what Van Dixhoorn noted does help to explain why at least the Westminster Divines thought that Calvin's Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism was not sufficient.

The heart of Calvin's theology is certainly present in the 3FU and Westminster Standards, of that there is no question.

Amazing Grace · #8 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Brother Andrew:

My intention is not to pit one against the other. IT is just ironic that we are labeled calvinists, yet use none of his writings in our 3FU or Catechisms.

Nor is that my intention (to pit one against another). But what Van Dixhoorn noted does help to explain why at least the Westminster Divines thought that Calvin's Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism was not sufficient.

The heart of Calvin's theology is certainly present in the 3FU and Westminster Standards, of that there is no question.

DO you have the dates written handy Andrew? Calvin's Cat, 3FU, WLC,WSC,WCF

Guido's Brother · #9 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:24 PM

I'll grant that there is more emphasis on the life of Christ in the Westminster Standards, but to say that the Heidelberg Catechism completely neglects it is not accurate. I can agree that the WS complements the TFU on this point.

I think it's worth noting that the Heidelberg Catechism insists that his whole life was characterized by suffering. Ursinus elaborates in his Large Catechism, "Christ sustained all sorts of misery and pain in soul as well as body, not only in the final act of our redemption in which he was arrested and crucified, but also all the way from his mother's womb to the tomb." His perfect life of active obedience is considered later in the Catechism in connection with justification.

Amazing Grace · #10 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

I'll grant that there is more emphasis on the life of Christ in the Westminster Standards, but to say that the Heidelberg Catechism completely neglects it is not accurate. I can agree that the WS complements the TFU on this point.

I think it's worth noting that the Heidelberg Catechism insists that his whole life was characterized by suffering. Ursinus elaborates in his Large Catechism, "Christ sustained all sorts of misery and pain in soul as well as body, not only in the final act of our redemption in which he was arrested and crucified, but also all the way from his mother's womb to the tomb." His perfect life of active obedience is considered later in the Catechism in connection with justification.

Ursinus has a Catechism?

Guido's Brother · #11 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

DO you have the dates written handy Andrew? Calvin's Cat, 3FU, WLC,WSC,WCF

Here are the dates for the TFU:

Heidelberg Catechism -- 1563
Belgic Confession -- 1561
Canons of Dort -- 1618/1619

I believe the Westminster Standards date to 1646. Calvin wrote a number of Catechisms. The first one was in 1538, another one in 1541, and a Latin version in 1545. I think the last one is considered the definitive edition.

VirginiaHuguenot · #12 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Brother Andrew:

My intention is not to pit one against the other. IT is just ironic that we are labeled calvinists, yet use none of his writings in our 3FU or Catechisms.

Nor is that my intention (to pit one against another). But what Van Dixhoorn noted does help to explain why at least the Westminster Divines thought that Calvin's Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism was not sufficient.

The heart of Calvin's theology is certainly present in the 3FU and Westminster Standards, of that there is no question.

DO you have the dates written handy Andrew? Calvin's Cat, 3FU, WLC,WSC,WCF

Calvin's Catechism -- First published in 1537, other editions followed.
Belgic Confession -- 1561 (see discussion of precise dating in Nicolaas H. Gootjes, The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources)
Heidelberg Catechism -- 1563
Canons of Dordt -- 1619
Westminster Confession --1646
Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms -- 1647

VirginiaHuguenot · #13 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

I'll grant that there is more emphasis on the life of Christ in the Westminster Standards, but to say that the Heidelberg Catechism completely neglects it is not accurate. I can agree that the WS complements the TFU on this point.

I think it's worth noting that the Heidelberg Catechism insists that his whole life was characterized by suffering. Ursinus elaborates in his Large Catechism, "Christ sustained all sorts of misery and pain in soul as well as body, not only in the final act of our redemption in which he was arrested and crucified, but also all the way from his mother's womb to the tomb." His perfect life of active obedience is considered later in the Catechism in connection with justification.

Ursinus has a Catechism?

Yes, they are right here.

Edit: Sorry, the link is broken. But Ursinus did a Large and Small Catechism.

Amazing Grace · #14 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Nor is that my intention (to pit one against another). But what Van Dixhoorn noted does help to explain why at least the Westminster Divines thought that Calvin's Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism was not sufficient.

The heart of Calvin's theology is certainly present in the 3FU and Westminster Standards, of that there is no question.

DO you have the dates written handy Andrew? Calvin's Cat, 3FU, WLC,WSC,WCF

Calvin's Catechism -- First published in 1537, other editions followed.
Belgic Confession -- 1561 (see discussion of precise dating in Nicolaas H. Gootjes, The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources)
Heidelberg Catechism -- 1563
Canons of Dordt -- 1619
Westminster Confession --1646
Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms -- 1647

OK, so my question is not why they decided to do the WCF,WLC,WSC, but for 100 years, they had Calvin's avliable, and yet decided to go with the other 3? Do you not find that ironic?

VirginiaHuguenot · #15 (**permalink**) 01-15-2008, 09:01 PM

FWIW, there is a small group in Texas which includes Calvin's Geneva Catechism among its authoritative doctrinal standards, along with the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity and others.