Heidelcast 187: What Must A Christian Believe? (5): The Holy Trinity

The Heidelcast is back and better than ever, well, as mediocre as ever anyway. As I’m recording this it’s late July and I’m trying to finish the commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Something had to give way so I put the Heidelcast on a temporary hold for a month. I’ve still a lot of work to do on the commentary. As of today I am on question 93. Stay tuned. I trust that you’re having a good summer. This is episode 5 in the series, What Must A Christian Believe? If you are just joining us, the series begins with episode 183. The link to the entire series so far and to all the episodes is below, in the show notes. So far we have been thinking about the necessity of creeds—everyone has one, even those who do not admit it, about the nature of the faith, i.e., that the Christian faith is an ancient, faith, and about your faith (what does it mean to say, “I believe”?). In this episode we are looking at the structure of the Apostles’ Creed and what it means to say that God is one in three persons. Is this an optional doctrine? Is it a second blessing for a few elites in the church?

 

 

Call the Heidelphone anytime at (760) 618-1563. Leave a message or email us us a voice memo from your phone and we may use it in a future podcast. Record it and email it to Heidelcast at heidelcast dot net.

If you benefit from the Heidelcast please leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts so that others can find it.

Please do not forget to make the coffer clink (see the donate button below).

© R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Show Notes

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


7 comments

  1. In the red Trinity Hymnal (copyright 1990, fifth printing, 1995) the Apostles’ Creed is in the first person singular. The Nicene Creed is in the first person plural.

  2. Have you done an article-review of The Chosen? I would appreciate reading your views on its methods and the perils of its “liberties” taken with the person and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and what counsel you may have for those who may need your understanding to give good counsel to friends. Thank you.

  3. Hi Scott,
    I eagerly anticipate the publication of your commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Do you have any remarks—general or specific—worth making re: Herman Hoeksema’s 10-volume treatment of same? (Strengths, weaknesses, errors, omissions, etc.). Not unrelated, there is also David Engelsma’s 2-volume exposition of the Belgic. While I’m asking, I might also solicit any observations you should have regarding that, as well-

Comments are closed.