Depending on the interpreter, the Heidelberg Catechism supposedly is dependent directly on Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Beza – and even Melancthon and Luther in parts. How can one catechism apparently serve the interests and purposes of so many different people and movements?

Recent scholarship by Bierma surveys the various theories and seeks to find a resolution in, essentially, the faith of the Elector in whose service this Catechism was drafted. Bierma, without using the words, essentially sees the catechism as an attempt at forging a “Pan Protestant” unity under Frederick’s reign. It’s subsequent adoption in so many churches outside his own nation shows his success in this attempt. Bierma isn’t alone in this evaluation, Rev. Gilbert Van Dooren mentions this briefly as one of the three purposes of the catechism in an article on catechism preaching.

As history records, the Heidelberg Catechism was able to express the living evangelical and reformed faith of churches across the world. Bierma notes that the Heidelberg Catechism embodies the common elements of the Protestant faith throughout the Palatinate and promotes a common Protestant consensus while remaining within the boundaries of the Augsburg Confession that Frederick was obligated to uphold. For that reason, the Catechism proper says no more (and no less) than was commonly held by followers of Bullinger, Calvin, and many Lutherans in the Palatinate on this topic.

At the same time, it’s recognized that individual adherents to the catechism may confess and use the catechism while going farther in some regards than the catechism itself in their personal beliefs. For example, some Calvinists are shocked by the Heidelberg’s muted exposition of the doctrines of predestination and reprobation. That is why the Dutch Reformed augment the catechism with the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort to round out their understanding of the Reformed Faith. Another example is the instance in Ursinus’ commentary on the catechism where he discusses predestination and reprobation. His comments go well beyond anything found in the catechism itself. Understanding the larger purpose of the catechism as an instrument for maintaining the peace, unity, and purity of the church also likely accounts for differences between the Heidelberg Catechism and catechisms Ursinus had drafted for his own use, the Smaller and Larger catechisms.

So far as literary dependence is concerned, we cannot say, for example, that the HC [Heidelberg Catechism] any more obviously derived its structure directly from Melancthon’s Loci than it did from the Lutheran “Summa” of Regensburg or the Reformed confessions of Theodore Beza. Furthermore, the theological slant of the theme of gratitude in HC part 3 or of the uses of the law in parts 1 and 3 is not distinctively Calvinistic, as has often been claimed. Nor does the sacramental teaching of the HC reflect a distinctive doctrinal viewpoint. Indeed, on theological issues where such angularities might most be expected to surface–predestination, covenant, the relationship between sign and signified in the sacraments–the HC is either muted or silent. The focus is nearly always on common theological ground among the followers of Melancthon, Calvin, and Bullinger. In this limited respect, at least, we may speak of the ecumenical spirit of the HC.

This elusive theological ancestry should not really surprise us. By the time the HC was being composed in the early 1560s, the triadic structure and much of the doctrinal material that filled out that structure had become part of the common property of the Protestant world, and without records of the actual sources used in the preparation of the catechism, we are not in a position to establish precise literary paternity. Even more important, however, is that the HC represented an attempt by Frederick III, who personally disliked theological labels, to forge a consensus among the Melancthonians, Calvinists, and Zwinglians in his realm. Little wonder, then, that so few distinctives of these theological traditions can be detected in the structure or doctrinal content of the HC. If one still insists on using labels, the most that should be said is that the HC was a Melancthonian-Reformed gloss on the altered Augsburg Confession–but a gloss that emphasized consensus among the Protestant parties of the Palatinate. To press these labels on the HC any harder is to do it an injustice, for the intent of the catechism was to overcome the very divisions that such labels represented.

Lyle D. Bierma, Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, An: Sources, History, and Theology (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought), p. 102.

  • Share/Bookmark