In reference to the latest article in Theologia (18/07/07),you wrote that the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster assumes that the catechumen *is* a Christian. You clear stated what you meant by that: a person who loved by God, saved by the atonement of Christ and going to inherit eternal life. The question is, does that mean that ALL catechumens are therefore loved, saved and going to inherit eternal life? If yes, what warrant do you have from the Heidelberg Catechism itself, let alone the Westminster Catechism that it is so?
The Heidelberg Catechism, according to my understanding, assumes that all catechumens are Christians WITHOUT assuming the identity of REAL Christians, i.e. the ones who are loved, saved and going to inherit eternal life. Indeed, nothing is implied or expressed categorically about that function in the Catechism itself.
If indeed, as you say it is not the business of the Catechism to judge the hearts of catechumens, then how can you categorically contend that the Catechism assumes that all catechumens are Christians who will inherit eternal life? That is a contradiction, an antinomy which is untenable.
That there are two classes of Christians is undeniably implicit in the Catechism itself by virtue of its adherence to the doctrine of predestination. Election stands in the background, as an ex post facto account of why some catechumens apostatise or are finally impenitent. But clearly the Catechism forefronts and presents the promises of God to ALL catechumens without distinction or exception. What if some catechumens disbelieve or pretend to believe these promises contained in the Catechism? It only serves to prove that the promises and assurances of the Catechism never applied to them.
In short, the Catechism(s) is/are not fruit inspectors. To suggest that there are those hold to the position is make a straw man. Secondly, the Catechism(s) is/are an instrument for applying the promises of God in Jesus Christ – the Catechism(s) is/are a lesser means of grace by the Holy Spirit to work conviction and sanctification in the life of the Church. If the Catechism’s work is inseparable from the Spirit’s work, it has the same effect as the Word and Sacraments, i.e. those who come under its instruction will have their guilt increased if they do not belong to the elect. Lastly, the Catechism as a ‘sacramental’ of the visible Church does not discriminate against the non-elect, as are the Word and Sacraments. This means that it is contented to assume all are Christians without presuming to judge the final destiny of particular individuals.
When election and the covenant presented holistically to the Church, only then will parents and individual believers be comforted by the promises of God which never fails. Otherwise, a mutilated covenant destroys true hope and substitutes the false hope of faithful life-long obedience of doing something in the course of perseverance which contradicts Scripture and the Confessions. In other words, a mutilated covenant fails to comfort the elect and lulls the non-elect into a false sense of security.
It is not the job of the minister of theologian to mix up systematic theology with pastoral theology but to integrate one with the other in their proper places in the life and witness of the Church. One of the greatest ironies of the neo-Reformed movement is that under the pretense of avoiding the mistake of misapplying systematic theology in pastoral practice, it has done precisely that by refusing to apply systematic theology at all in the first place.
I’m sorry, but does the Heidelberg Catechism or does it not require the person catechized to identify himself as a Christian, loved, chosen, and cared for by God?
You presented a lot of verbiage here (which may be of value and have a point in its proper place) that seems to evade the point in this case.
To give other readers proper context, here is the article in question.
I’m sorry Mr. Horne. That isn’t the point, is it? Requiring the person to identify him/herself as a Christian is different from the Catechism assuming the person as Christian, in both cases the meaning of Christian is the exactly the same. You emphatically did not say the above in the Theologia article, only that the Catechism assumes that all cathecumens are Christians in the sense of loved, saved and are going to inherit eternal life. Obviously, the Catechism requires the person to identify him/herself as a Christian. Which Reformed person would disagree? Where the rubber meets the road is whether the Catechism assumes that all are Christians in the sense of loved, saved and inheritors of eternal life.
If we want to be FAITHFUL to the Catechism, Heidelberg *and* Westminster, and as an Anglican, I would the 39 Articles of Religion and the BCP, the answer is there are not all Israel that are of Israel. Romans 9 is clear that the promises of God is not made null and void by the non-performance of the non-elect. Therefore, by good and necessary consequence, the efficacy of the promises applies only to the elect according to God’s secret will. In conclusion, the promises of God applies only to the elect.
In pastoral practice, the minister preaches and declares the promises of God to the Church without distinction or exception. The Holy applies it effectually to the elect. Systematic theology working hand in hand with pastoral theology.
Finally, if we love our children and the children of the congregation, let us also love the Truth of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions. If we disagree, then let us leave the Reformed Communion for confessional Lutheranism. But if we say we are Reformed, then let us wholeheartedly cling to the Reformed insistence of the particularity of saving grace.
What are you talking about? There is a difference between presumption or assumption (or gracious regard) and the absolute reality of salvation. The one who is baptized is simply assumed to be Christian and thus catechized (via the HC) in that manner. Is there any other Reformed way to do it? BTW there is no reason for you to come careening in here acting like a rump and telling everyone who disagrees with you (you, who are marooned as an ex-pat in an Anglican tradition that hasn’t been Reformed in any meaningful way in a long time). It’s a very un-Christian way to act toward brethren and a minister of the Gospel (even those who like so many of the divines, doesn’t have the pedigree of apostolic succession).
So, though you are probably a smart fellow being in the profession of law, I’m having a hard time understanding what your point or question is. Boil it way down for us. You can do it.
Mr. Horne,
In reference to the latest article in Theologia (18/07/07),you wrote that the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster assumes that the catechumen *is* a Christian. You clear stated what you meant by that: a person who loved by God, saved by the atonement of Christ and going to inherit eternal life. The question is, does that mean that ALL catechumens are therefore loved, saved and going to inherit eternal life? If yes, what warrant do you have from the Heidelberg Catechism itself, let alone the Westminster Catechism that it is so?
The Heidelberg Catechism, according to my understanding, assumes that all catechumens are Christians WITHOUT assuming the identity of REAL Christians, i.e. the ones who are loved, saved and going to inherit eternal life. Indeed, nothing is implied or expressed categorically about that function in the Catechism itself.
If indeed, as you say it is not the business of the Catechism to judge the hearts of catechumens, then how can you categorically contend that the Catechism assumes that all catechumens are Christians who will inherit eternal life? That is a contradiction, an antinomy which is untenable.
That there are two classes of Christians is undeniably implicit in the Catechism itself by virtue of its adherence to the doctrine of predestination. Election stands in the background, as an ex post facto account of why some catechumens apostatise or are finally impenitent. But clearly the Catechism forefronts and presents the promises of God to ALL catechumens without distinction or exception. What if some catechumens disbelieve or pretend to believe these promises contained in the Catechism? It only serves to prove that the promises and assurances of the Catechism never applied to them.
In short, the Catechism(s) is/are not fruit inspectors. To suggest that there are those hold to the position is make a straw man. Secondly, the Catechism(s) is/are an instrument for applying the promises of God in Jesus Christ – the Catechism(s) is/are a lesser means of grace by the Holy Spirit to work conviction and sanctification in the life of the Church. If the Catechism’s work is inseparable from the Spirit’s work, it has the same effect as the Word and Sacraments, i.e. those who come under its instruction will have their guilt increased if they do not belong to the elect. Lastly, the Catechism as a ‘sacramental’ of the visible Church does not discriminate against the non-elect, as are the Word and Sacraments. This means that it is contented to assume all are Christians without presuming to judge the final destiny of particular individuals.
When election and the covenant presented holistically to the Church, only then will parents and individual believers be comforted by the promises of God which never fails. Otherwise, a mutilated covenant destroys true hope and substitutes the false hope of faithful life-long obedience of doing something in the course of perseverance which contradicts Scripture and the Confessions. In other words, a mutilated covenant fails to comfort the elect and lulls the non-elect into a false sense of security.
It is not the job of the minister of theologian to mix up systematic theology with pastoral theology but to integrate one with the other in their proper places in the life and witness of the Church. One of the greatest ironies of the neo-Reformed movement is that under the pretense of avoiding the mistake of misapplying systematic theology in pastoral practice, it has done precisely that by refusing to apply systematic theology at all in the first place.
I’m sorry, but does the Heidelberg Catechism or does it not require the person catechized to identify himself as a Christian, loved, chosen, and cared for by God?
You presented a lot of verbiage here (which may be of value and have a point in its proper place) that seems to evade the point in this case.
To give other readers proper context, here is the article in question.
I’m sorry Mr. Horne. That isn’t the point, is it? Requiring the person to identify him/herself as a Christian is different from the Catechism assuming the person as Christian, in both cases the meaning of Christian is the exactly the same. You emphatically did not say the above in the Theologia article, only that the Catechism assumes that all cathecumens are Christians in the sense of loved, saved and are going to inherit eternal life. Obviously, the Catechism requires the person to identify him/herself as a Christian. Which Reformed person would disagree? Where the rubber meets the road is whether the Catechism assumes that all are Christians in the sense of loved, saved and inheritors of eternal life.
If we want to be FAITHFUL to the Catechism, Heidelberg *and* Westminster, and as an Anglican, I would the 39 Articles of Religion and the BCP, the answer is there are not all Israel that are of Israel. Romans 9 is clear that the promises of God is not made null and void by the non-performance of the non-elect. Therefore, by good and necessary consequence, the efficacy of the promises applies only to the elect according to God’s secret will. In conclusion, the promises of God applies only to the elect.
In pastoral practice, the minister preaches and declares the promises of God to the Church without distinction or exception. The Holy applies it effectually to the elect. Systematic theology working hand in hand with pastoral theology.
TQ
Finally, if we love our children and the children of the congregation, let us also love the Truth of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions. If we disagree, then let us leave the Reformed Communion for confessional Lutheranism. But if we say we are Reformed, then let us wholeheartedly cling to the Reformed insistence of the particularity of saving grace.
TQ
I’m completely losing the distinction here. Readers will have to read for themselves. I do affirm double-foreordination and that Romans 9 teaches it.
Jason,
What are you talking about? There is a difference between presumption or assumption (or gracious regard) and the absolute reality of salvation. The one who is baptized is simply assumed to be Christian and thus catechized (via the HC) in that manner. Is there any other Reformed way to do it? BTW there is no reason for you to come careening in here acting like a rump and telling everyone who disagrees with you (you, who are marooned as an ex-pat in an Anglican tradition that hasn’t been Reformed in any meaningful way in a long time). It’s a very un-Christian way to act toward brethren and a minister of the Gospel (even those who like so many of the divines, doesn’t have the pedigree of apostolic succession).
So, though you are probably a smart fellow being in the profession of law, I’m having a hard time understanding what your point or question is. Boil it way down for us. You can do it.