Ursinus on How to Study Theology

I’ve recently begun teaching a class at my church on the Heidelberg Catechism & Orthodox Catechism. As part of my preparation for each week’s lesson, I’ve been reading through Zacharias Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. On page 9, Dr. Ursinus begins a brief summary of the three methods of teaching and learning Christian theology, “the doctrine of the church.” These can be labeled as follows:

1. Catechesis

2. Systematic Theology

3. Study of Scripture

Why does Ursinus place these methods in this order? It does seem, at first, to be backward. Yet once the section is read in its entirety, we’re left with some interesting insight into how Ursinus (and Confessional Christianity in general) understands the relationship between Scripture, theology, and Confessions/Catechisms.

The method of teaching and studying Theology is three-fold. The first is the system of catechetical instruction, or that method which comprises a brief summary and simple exposition of the principal doctrines of the christian religion, which is called catechising. This method is of the greatest importance to all, because it is equally necessary for all, the learned as well as the unlearned, to know what constitutes the foundation of true religion.

For Ursinus, the use of catechisms wasn’t just for teaching children or recent converts. It was to be an ongoing process of review and refreshment even for seasoned Christians. Perhaps you’ve heard someone express disinterest in studying a catechism because he thinks he is beyond hearing about the fundamentals of Law and Gospel. This is an incredibly naive view, both of one’s own spiritual maturity as well as the purpose of catechisms.

The second method is the consideration and discussion of subjects of a general and more difficult character, or the Common Places, as they are called, which contain a more lengthy explanation of every single point, and of difficult questions with their definitions, divisions, and arguments. This method belongs more appropriately to theological schools, and is necessary:

First, that those who are educated in these schools, and who may afterwards be called to teach in the church, may more easily and fully understand the whole system of theology; for as it is in other things, so it is also in the study of Divinity, our knowledge of it is obtained slowly and with great difficulty; yea, our knowledge of it must necessarily remain confused and imperfect unless every separate part of this doctrine be taught in some systematic form, so as to be perceived and understood by the mind.

Secondly, that those who are students of theology may, when they are called to act as teachers in the church, be able to present clearly and systematically the substance of the entire doctrine of God’s word. To do this it is necessary that they themselves should first have a complete system, or frame-work, as it were, of this doctrine in their own mind.

So far, everything seems fairly straightforward. All Christians are to be catechized, that is, taught the fundamental doctrines of the faith, necessary for salvation and holy living. Deeper theological study is then recommended, particularly for those who will go on to catechize and teach others in the faith. This is so they may better understand the systematic nature of the truth themselves, as well as to equip them to better explain correct theology to those who are being taught. Ursinus’ third reason for deeper study of systematic theology might surprise some readers at first, however:

Thirdly, it is necessary, for the purpose of discovering and determining the true and natural interpretation of the Scriptures, which requires a clear and full knowledge of every part of the doctrine of the church, in order that this interpretation may be in accordance with the analogy of faith, so that the Scriptures may be made to harmonize throughout.

“Wait a second!” someone may object. “Do you mean we need a catechism and a full-orbed system of theology before we can understand the natural interpretation of Scripture?” If that is what Ursinus intended, it would certainly be putting the theological cart before the scriptural horse. We will return to this seemingly odd comment, but for now, let us continue to hear Dr. Ursinus.

Lastly, it is necessary for the purpose of enabling us to form a proper decision in regard to the controversies of the church, which are various, difficult, and dangerous, lest we be drawn from the truth into error and falsehood.

The discipline of systematic study and arrangement of theological doctrine is an invaluable tool in distinguishing and warding off heresy. When a new, creative, heretical doctrine or movement rears its head, those who have studied the system of Christian truth, especially how all the parts are interrelated and interdependent, will be much more well-equipped to recognize and refute theological falsehoods.

The third method of the study of theology is the careful and diligent reading of the Scriptures or sacred text. This is the highest method in the study of the doctrine of the church. To attain this, the two former methods are to be studied, that we may be well prepared for the reading, understanding, and exposition of the holy Scriptures.

Here’s another statement that may leave readers scratching their heads. How on earth can Scripture be the final step in learning the doctrine of the church? Never fear, Dr. Ursinus will soon shed some light on the matter.

For as the doctrine of the catechism and Common Places are taken out of the Scriptures, and are directed by them as their rule, so they again lead us, as it were, by the hand to the Scriptures.

Now we see the missing first piece of Ursinus’ recommendations — the origin of the catechism & doctrine of the church. At the very beginning of his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus writes,

The doctrine of the church is the entire and uncorrupted doctrine of the law and gospel concerning the true God, together with his will, works, and worship; divinely revealed, and comprehended in the writings of the prophets and apostle, and confirmed by many miracles and divine testimonies; through which the Holy Spirit works effectually in the hearts of the elect, and gathers from the whole human race an everlasting church, in which God is glorified, both in this, and in the life to come.

So now we see that Scripture is the starting point, as it of course must be. From Scripture, the Church discerns the “principal doctrines of the christian religion” and expresses and teaches them in the form of catechesis. Using Scripture, these principal doctrines are developed and connected with other doctrines, forming a systematic network of truth. It is this larger, more detailed grid, itself derived from God’s Word, which can help us as we read Scripture, enabling us to avoid error and inconsistency in our interpretation of any piece of the Bible. Passages that can be confusing when read in isolation can be made clear when viewed in the light of primary, fundamental doctrines reinforced throughout Scripture.

As we come to understand Ursinus’ meaning, we begin to see the value of catechisms and written confessions of faith. Those who accuse confessional Christians of elevating man’s words to (or above) the level of Scripture fail to understand the Scriptural basis for the Confession. The Confession is not itself inspired, and is always subject to the Word of God. Yet for those who confess the doctrines of the Confession, their belief is that the Confession is an accurate statement of the key doctrines taught by Scripture itself. It is not seen as an addition to Scripture, but a very useful summary of the truth of God’s Word. As such, it can be a help, as Ursinus says, in teaching the truth and avoiding error.

Although I do take exception to a couple of statements in the Heidelberg Catechism, it is on the whole a remarkable, outstanding document. I highly recommend it, especially if read alongside Particular Baptist Hercules Collins’ revision of it, The Orthodox Catechism (to which I still take a couple of exceptions on other issues). May you find it edifying and a comfort to your soul!

Advertisement

Crampton on Creeds, Confessions, and Exegesis

W. Gary Crampton, in his book, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture, does not fail to mention the importance of paying attention to historical theology. This is in opposition to the “biblicist” approach discussed by James Renihan here. Crampton writes,

A creed or confession is a summary and orderly statement about what the church believes concerning Christian doctrine. As standards subordinate to the Word of God, creeds serve as distillations of the teaching of Scripture, and are useful in Christian education. Too, they serve as guards against heresy. In [Presbyterian -PMcW] Reformed churches, the Westminster Confession of Faith functions as a paradigm that provides boundaries, acting as a filter to screen theological teachings. All teaching is run through the “grid” or the paradigm of the Confession.

In these ways creeds and confessions are very useful. This is the sense in which Augustine once wrote: “The sentiments of the bishops who have gone before us, men who treated these divine words [of Scripture] faithfully and memorably…what they found in the church, they held; what they had learned, they taught; what they had received from the fathers, this they delivered to the children.”* But never are creeds and confessions to be considered on a par with Scripture. Rather, they, like the decisions of synods and councils, says the Confession (31:4), may and do err: “therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be use as a help in both.” The Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God, the only infallible, inerrant standard by which all is to be judged.

*Augustine, Against Julian, 2, 19:34; as cited by Joseph Gallegos in Not By Scripture Alone, 390.

(53-54)

Crampton also comments on the necessary tools and approach for proper exegesis of Scripture:

In contrast to Roman Catholicism, which teaches that only the Roman Church-State can properly interpret the Bible for its children, Christian theology teaches that all believers are to be adults in understanding, not children; they are to be involved in Bible study; and they are able to interpret Scripture correctly (Psalm 1:2-3; Joshua 1:8; 1 Corinthians 14:20). As stated by Charles Hodge: “The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the church.”**

When Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, it was the whole body of believers that he commanded to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The Apostle John told his readers that they were to “test the spirits” in order that they would be able to discern “the spirit of truth” from “the spirit of error” (1 John 4:1, 6). Understanding this, the Reformers spoke of the importance of the individual’s right and duty to study privately and to interpret the Scriptures. Christians have both the right and the responsibility to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. By this they would be able to “test” all teachings, and be able to discern “the spirit of truth” from the “spirit of error.” As we have just studied, it is due to the fact that “all of the people of God…have [a] right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,” that we are to have accurate translations in “the vulgar language of every nation.”

This does not mean that every believer has the right to interpret Scripture as he pleases (2 Peter 1:20-21). Rather, Scripture is to be interpreted according to the meaning given to it by Christ, through His Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16). This is why the discipline of Biblical hermeneutics is of vital importance. Biblical, or sacred, hermeneutics is the science of or the theory of the interpretation of the Bible. The root of the word “hermeneutics” is found in Mark 5:41 (methermeneuo, “to translate”) and 1 Corinthians 12:10 (hermeneia, “translate” or “interpret”). Biblical hermeneutics, as a discipline, is inseparably related to exegesis. The word “exegesis” (exegeomai; John 1:18) means “to lead out.” Proper Biblical exegesis is the “leading out” or “explaining” of Scripture the true meaning of the text, which as the Confession says, “is not manifold, but one.”

…

The high view of Scripture propounded by the Westminster Assembly has several implications for a proper Biblical hermeneutic. First, as Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy claims, it binds us to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices.” This methodology focuses on the grammatical structure of the passages of Scripture, as they were originally written, and the historical context of the writing. According to Reymond, what this means is that the exegete “must seek to put himself in the writer’s linguistic, cultural, historical, and religious shoes to discover the writer’s intended meaning.”*** This being so, the Biblical exegete must understand something of the structure of the original languages, bringing to bear on the text the meaning of the words and the syntactical structure of the passage. He must also understand the historical context in which the book under study was written. Questions of authorship, date, and destination of the various books are relevant in a study of Scripture. Commentaries, lexicons, and concordances are available and very helpful to students at all levels of exegetical skills.

**Hodge, Systematic Theology, I:183.

***Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 49.

(125-127)

Emphasis in bold is mine.