Jacob Arminius and the Heidelberg Catechism

 

By the end of the 16th century, the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism were viewed as binding and authoritative. This is especially true with the former of these two documents. Even Remonstrant historian Gerard Brandt knew this (Brandt, The History of the Reformation and Other Ecclesiastical Transactions in and about the Low Countries: From the Beginning of the Eighth Century, down to the Famous, Synod of Dort, 1:405-406). Many Reformed synods confirmed this, such as those as Antwerp (1566), Wesel (1568), and Middelburg (1581).

Where does Jacob Arminius play into all of this? It might come as a surprise to some that Arminius viewed himself as Reformed, and, during the Leiden controversy on predestination (which eventually led to the Synod of Dort), claimed that the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession were on his side of the question of whether or not foreseen faith is the grounds or cause of God's eternal decree to save the elect. For example, he once said this:

"If it be decided, that [my opinions] are contrary to the Confession, then I have been engaged in teaching something in opposition to a document, 'against which never to propound any doctrine,' was the faithful promise which I made, when I signed it with my own hand: if, therefore, I be found thus criminal, I ought to be visited with punishment." (Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments, in The Works of James Arminius 1:609)

Arminius appealed to questions 20 and 54, of the Heidelberg Catechism, to support his view on predestination and election. Here is the statements from the Catechism:

Question 20: Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ? 

Answer: No; only those who are ingrafted into Him,1 and receive all His benefits, by a true faith

Question 54: What do you believe concerning the holy and catholic church of Christ? 

Answer: I believe that the Son of God, from the beginning of the world to its end gathers, defends, and preserves to himself, by his Spirit and word, out of the whole human race, a church, chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith; and that I am, and forever shall remain, a living member thereof.

Regarding question 20, Arminius interpreted this as meaning that the eternal decree of God considered the elect as believers, and on that basis, predestined them to eternal salvation. However, Arminius did this against the majority Reformed interpretation of his day. Add to this that Zacharias Ursinus (whose famous commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism has been a standard text in Reformed Orthodoxy) also interpreted the catechism as teaching unconditional election. It gets more interesting when we see that Arminius was familiar with Ursinus' commentary and possessed copies of it in his library (The Auction Catalogue of the Library of J. Arminius [facsimile edition with an introduction by C. O. Bangs; Utrecht: HES, 1985], pg. 4). A similar conclusion applies with respect to question 54.