Questions About Heidelberg Catechism Question & Answer 36

Introduction

The two principal Reformed Doctrinal Standards – the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism contain various statements defining the main aspects of the Reformed doctrines. From time to time this blog looks at specific statements from those two standards as to their scriptural basis and logical coherence.

The texts of the Belgic Confession (BC) and/or the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) referenced in this post are from the current versions used in the Canadian Reformed Churches, and can be found on their various websites.

Scripture quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted. The texts cited in the footnotes of the BC and HC statements are quoted in bold font; adjacent verses are included (in plain font) where relevant to help establish the context.

=======================================

The Heidelberg Catechism (HC) – Question & Answer 36

Question 36. WHAT BENEFIT DO YOU RECEIVE FROM THE HOLY CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF CHRIST?

Answer 36. “ He is our Mediator1,and with his innocence and perfect holiness covers, in the sight of God, my sin, in which I was conceived and born2.”

Note 1. 1 Tim 2:5, 6; Heb 9:13-15.
Note 2. Rom 8:3, 4; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 4:4, 5; 1 Pet 1:18, 19.

———————————————————

Q&A 36 deals with three issues: (1) “..the holy conception and birth of Christ..”, (2) the affirmation that “He is our Mediator”, and (3) “…my sin, in which I was conceived and born”. The latter clearly refers to original sin, i.e. Adam’s sin, of which, according to the doctrine of original sin, I and all other humans are guilty of at birth.

Q&A 36 links the first and last issues by claiming that the holiness of Jesus’ conception and birth somehow “covers” my original sin. There is no reference to the sins I have actually personally committed, nor is the atoning death of Jesus on the cross mentioned. The only two facts that are identified are the two births – that of Jesus and my own birth – and it is claimed that the birth of Jesus somehow “covers” the original sin with which I am born.  

Q&A 36 lacks clarity and gives rise to the following questions:

    • The initial phrase in Answer 36 “He is our Mediator” does not appear to have a logical/grammatical connection with the Question. Is this phrase intended to be part of the answer? Or is it an additional fact brought in to provide a basis for the answer which is contained in the subsequent phrases?   
    • What does it mean that “my sin, in which I was conceived and born” is “covered”? Does “covered” mean atoned for and forgiven? If so, does that mean that Jesus death on the cross was therefore not required for the forgiveness of my “original sin”? Would it not then follow that Jesus would have atoned for two kinds of sin in two different ways?
    • What is the meaning of the phrase “in the sight of God”? Does the meaning of Answer 36 change if that phrase is dropped?
    • If the phrase “covered in the sight of God” does NOT include atonement for and forgiveness of my “original sin”, then what is the “benefit” of its being “covered”?
    • Does the “covering” of original sin occur at birth? If not at birth then when does it become effective?
    • Who is qualified to receive this “covering” of original sin? Is faith required to appropriate this benefit? Can this benefit ever be lost or forfeited? Where are the scriptures that provide the basis for the central claim of Q&A 36?

The scripture citations offered by the HC in Notes 1 and 2 address only the claim that Jesus is our mediator, and that Jesus was without sin and so was able to atone for our sins with his life blood – neither of which are in dispute. However the cited texts do not address the central claim – that the holiness of Jesus’ conception and birth “covers” my original sin.

Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 5

INTRODUCTION

This is the final post in a series of five post evaluating the statements on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) and probing the logic and coherence of those statements and their scriptural support as cited in the HC reference notes. Some statements appear inconsistent with other statements in the HC, or they cite scriptures out of context, or they lack scriptural support, or they appear problematic on other grounds. These posts do not address paedobaptist vs credobaptist arguments, but look only at the internal consistency and coherence of the arguments made in the HC. Questions as to what a sacrament is or how it functions are not addressed. Continue reading “Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 5”

Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 4

INTRODUCTION

This is the fourth in a series of five post evaluating the statements on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) and probing the logic and coherence of those statements and their scriptural support as cited in the HC reference notes. Some statements appear inconsistent with other statements in the HC, or they cite scriptures out of context, or they lack scriptural support, or they appear problematic on other grounds. These posts do not address paedobaptist vs credobaptist arguments, but look only at the internal consistency and coherence of the arguments made in the HC. Questions as to what a sacrament is or how it functions are not addressed. Continue reading “Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 4”

Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 3

INTRODUCTION

This is the third in a series of five post evaluating the statements on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) and probing the logic and coherence of those statements and their scriptural support as cited in the HC reference notes. Some statements appear inconsistent with other statements in the HC, or they cite scriptures out of context, or they lack scriptural support, or they appear problematic on other grounds. These posts do not address paedobaptist vs credobaptist arguments, but look only at the internal consistency and coherence of the arguments made in the HC. Questions as to what a sacrament is or how it functions are not addressed. Continue reading “Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 3”

Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 2

INTRODUCTION

This is the second in a series of five post evaluating the statements on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) and probing the logic and coherence of those statements and their scriptural support as cited in the HC reference notes. Some statements appear inconsistent with other statements in the HC, or they cite scriptures out of context, or they lack scriptural support, or they appear problematic on other grounds. These posts do not address paedobaptist vs credobaptist arguments, but look only at the internal consistency and coherence of the arguments made in the HC. Questions as to what a sacrament is or how it functions are not addressed. Continue reading “Questions About Baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism – Part 2”