Introduction

By R. Scott Clark

We know him as Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83), the great Reformed theologian and principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). His parents and friends at school knew him as Zachary Baer. His name in German means bear (that is why the paint company has a bear on the can). Later, as a scholar, he Latinized his name as Ursinus (i.e., little bear), which was a little joke. He was born in Breslau, in Silesia, in what is today Poland, which sits on the Oder River on the border of Germany. The city is known today as Wrocław (pronounced Vrotswaf). It was originally part of Czech Bohemia and known as Vratislavia.¹ In 1526 it became part of the Hapsburg Empire and became a Protestant city early in the Reformation. In 1741 it became a Prussian city until the end of World War II, when, under the treaty of Potsdam, it became a Polish city.

Zacharias’ father, Caspar was well educated and came to Breslau to tutor the sons of the wealthy.² Caspar married into a prominent family. Nevertheless, after Zacharias was almost certainly tutored at home by his father,³ completed his preparatory education at St Elizabeth School, where he was tutored and catechized by Ambrose Moibanus (1494–1554), and went to university in Wittenberg in 1550,⁴ his family’s situation was such that his education had to be funded by the city council and private scholarships from luminaries such as Johann Crato (1519–85).⁵ Caspar was in poor health and Zacharias’ mother died, possibly from the plague, when Ursinus was still fairly young.⁶ Caspar died in 1555.⁷

At Wittenberg he became a student of Philipp Melanchthon (1499–1560), Luther’s successor and one of the first-generation Protestant Reformers. Though not as well-known as Martin Luther (1483–1546), or John Calvin (1509–1564), Melanchthon’s influence on the Reformation and upon Ursinus was immense. He wrote (and later revised) the Augsburg Confession (1530) and published the first systematic account of Protestant theology (Loci communes) in 1521. After Luther’s death, he was the leading Protestant theologian until Calvin became more known in the 1550s.

Student life was difficult for Ursinus. In 1551 he had trouble getting the city to provide the promised support, so he had to ask Melanchthon for help and he, in turn, asked the physician Crato for help, who secured the funding but on the condition that Ursinus tutor a fellow student, who turned out to be what today we call a problem child.⁸

Breslau was a Lutheran town and the university at Wittenberg was Lutheran. There Ursinus not only studied with Melanchthon but also with Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1558) and George Major (1502–74) among others.⁹ Bugenhagen was a significant figure in Luther’s circle in Wittenberg and Major, in the early 1550s, would become notorious for suggesting that salvation was received through faith but “retained” by good works.

Ursinus was in Wittenberg for about seven turbulent years. In that time, he witnessed multiple controversies over the doctrine of justification.¹⁰ The year before he arrived in Wittenberg had seen Melanchthon critique Andreas Osiander (1498–1552) for teaching that we are justified by the indwelling Christ. That controversy continued during Ursinus’ time in Wittenberg.¹¹ In 1555, some Lutheran theologians in Leipzig argued that, in justification, man is not purely passive, which provoked the response from Matthias Flaccius (1520–75) that not only is man sinful but that after the fall, sin is essential to human nature.

He was also witness to controversies over the nature of the Lord’s Supper during the 1550s. Melanchthon had revised his own view of the Supper before 1540 and thus, quite remarkably (given the status of the Augsburg Confession), revised article 10 on the Supper to be more congenial to a figurative or sacramental understanding of the relation between the literal body of Christ and the elements of the Supper. Whereas article 10 had said that the body of Christ is “truly present” in the revised version (the Augustana Variata) it now read “truly exhibited.” Both Calvin and his successor, Theodore Beza (1519–1605) subscribed to the Variata as did the Reformed Elector of the Palatinate, Frederick III (1515–76). After Calvin signed the Zurich Consensus (Consensus Tigurinus) in 1549 with Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75), the so-called gnesio (i.e., genuine) Lutherans, who were suspicious of Melanchthon, attacked Calvin viciously as a “sacramentarian” (i.e., as a Zwinglian).

Ursinus left Wittenberg in August, 1557.¹² He went on an “eight-month journey” in which he visited Worms, Marburg (where some from Zürich were studying), Heidelberg (where Melanchthon was born and had studied and with which he had close connections), Worms (again), and Basel. For at least part of this trip he traveled with Heinrich Bullinger’s son.¹³ He visited Zürich only for a few days, and then Basel (again), and thence to Bern and Geneva.¹⁴ From there he went to Lyons, Orleans, and Paris, and then back to Geneva.¹⁵ On this trip he had opportunity to meet and hear Reformed theologians such as Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), Calvin, and Beza. After that study tour, he returned to Wittenberg and accepted, in 1558, the call of the Breslau city council to become a teacher in St Elizabeth School.¹⁶

His time back home was difficult. The gnesio-Lutherans were suspicious of him. He had clearly adopted Melanchthon’s position on the Supper and seems to have been moving toward Reformed views in other respects.¹⁷ In Breslau he taught the classics and Melanchthon’s catechism. After Melanchthon’s death in 1560, Ursinus was at a crossroads personally and theologically. He even considered joining the faculty in Wittenberg but after obtaining a leave of absence from St Elizabeth School, he traveled to Basel and Zürich (again).¹⁸ He lived with a Hebrew professor in Zürich and studied with Peter Martyr. While there he received the call from Frederick III, who had high regard for Melanchthon, to join the faculty in Heidelberg.¹⁹

Like Calvin, Ursinus longed for a quiet life where he could study, teach, and write but in Heidelberg he did not find that quiet. Write and teach he did. Though he is most famous for what is published in English as the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, in fact those were student notes. We should think of it as substantially reflecting what Ursinus said in his lectures on the catechism but with the understanding that these notes also reflect his students and editors. In his collected works we find the expected exhortations to students to study theology (every professor of theology gave this lecture), a Summa Theologiae (untranslated), his two catechisms (larger and smaller, now available in English), a Loci theologici (untranslated), an Apology for the Catechism (untranslated), a variety of treatises including critiques of the Anabaptists and a defense of infant baptism, critiques of an engagement with various Lutheran authors and texts (including the Book of Concord), all untranslated, and an as yet untranslated commentary on Isaiah, among other things.

Though we think of Ursinus chiefly in regard to the Heidelberg Catechism, he made other contributions to the Reformed tradition. One of the most important was his development of an idea that existed in Augustine and was arguably latent in other Fathers, that being the doctrine of a prelapsarian covenant of nature (later works) before the fall, in the garden. This was an elaboration of the federal theology which Augustine inherited and deployed against Pelagius. Our word federal is really a Latin word, foedus, which as an adjective signifies disgusting but, which, as a noun signifies covenant. Augustine and other Fathers taught there are two federal (representative) heads of all humanity: Adam was the first and Christ was the last (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:45). Against the Anabaptists, Zwingli had defended the unity of the covenant of grace and the New Covenant as a republication of the Abrahamic covenant. Bullinger had written De testamento (1534) explaining (against the Anabaptists) that there is one covenant of grace in various administrations.²⁰

Ursinus’ contribution here (assisted by Olevianus, who used similar language) was to say that the pre-fall probation in which Adam as the federal head of all humanity existed, was to be understood as a covenant. Adam was created, as we confess, “in righteousness and true holiness” in order that he “might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him, and live with him in eternal blessedness.”²¹ Adam was so made “that he could perform” the terms of the covenant of nature or works, but he “by willful disobedience deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.”²² Under the covenant of nature, Adam was under the law. After the fall, in a state of sin, God proclaimed a covenant of grace.

In his Larger Catechism, traditionally understood to have preceded the formation of the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus correlated the covenant of nature/works to the law and the covenant of grace to the gospel. Thus making Reformed covenant theology another expression of that basic Reformation distinction between law and gospel.²³

Life for the Reformed in Heidelberg under Frederick III was relatively safe but neither the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics were happy that one of the seven electorates was now aligned with the Reformed. They pointed to the fact that the Peace of Augsburg (1555) allowed for Lutherans and Roman Catholics, but not for the Reformed. The Reformed faith was regarded as an illegal religion, which placed the Palatinate in danger of invasion. Thus, when he was teaching theology in the university or lecturing in the seminary, the Collegium Sapientiae, or when he was writing he was often defending the legitimacy of the Reformed reformation in the Palatinate. He was so busy that he called himself a “donkey on a treadmill.”²⁴ Over his office door, in what is now the Akademie der Wissenschaften, sitting just below the castle, he had a little sign which read, “Friend, whoever enters here, either be brief, go, or help me with my work.”²⁵

In 1576 Frederick died and was succeeded as Elector by his son Ludwig VI, who followed his mother’s gnesio-Lutheran theology. Most of the Reformed ministers and theologians were dismissed from the Palatinate. Ursinus went west to Neustadt, where, with the patronage of another of Frederick’s sons, Johann Casmir, he helped to establish a new Reformed academy. That is where he wrote his commentary on Isaiah.

In his last two years Ursinus was often ill but still pressed by correspondents (especially Crato) to explain this or that point of doctrine or to comment on some controversy. He did not make it to fifty years of age but died in the Lord, confessing Christ as his only comfort in life and in death.

The undated text below is presented for the first time in English translation by the Reverend. I do not know exactly when he wrote it, but since it is undated and given the subject matter and the way he proceeds, it seems more likely than not that it is from the period 1557–61. From 1561, when he began writing and publishing in and from Heidelberg, most of his works are dated. Some of the language (e.g., “the promise of grace”) used in this treatise echoes that of the 1531 Apology of the Augsburg Confession.²⁶

The Argumenta before us, in eleven brief articles, is a defense of the sacramental or figurative relation between the sign (i.e., the sacrament) and the thing signified (i.e., Christ’s body and blood). The debate between the gnesio-Lutherans, on one side, and Philipp (by 1540) and the Reformed broadly, on the other side, was not whether believers eat the true body and blood of Christ. With the possible exception of Zwingli, who, by the time Ursinus reached Heidelberg, had been dead for nearly three decades, all the Reformed affirmed that, in the Supper the Holy Spirit feeds believers on the body and blood of Christ. The gnesio-Lutherans, however, insisted on the prepositions in, with, and under. They held to the everywhereness (ubiquitas) of Christ’s humanity. Because his humanity, they argued, is everywhere he is “illocally” present in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine. The kinds of arguments Ursinus presents here are the sorts of arguments he would have heard in Basel, Zürich, and Geneva against the likes of Joachim Westphal (1510–74) and Tilemann Hesshusen (1527–88), who wrote heated treatises against Calvin and the Reformed. Against the ubiquitarian doctrine, Ursinus argued for a spiritual (i.e., by the Holy Spirit) feeding on the body and blood of Christ, through faith alone. It should be noted that Ursinus used the word faith about eighteen times in this work. This is no sacramentarian work—that is, Ursinus was not thinking of our pledging but of Christ’s promise to us. Like Calvin, Martyr, and Beza, Ursinus grasped the heart of what Luther was after at Marburg: a true communion with and feeding upon the body and blood of Christ, and like Augustine and Calvin, he distinguished between sign and the thing signified.

 

Arguments That “This Is My Body” Is A Promise Of Grace²⁷

By Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83)

Translated by Charles Lee Irons

Arguments by which it is shown that these words: “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many,” etc., are a promise of grace added to the rite of the Supper.

I. The sacraments of the new testament are signs of nothing other than the promise of grace. (Now, the promise of grace is a promise of participation in or communion with Christ himself and all his benefits, through faith.) Now concerning this promise, in order to confirm our faith, the sacraments were instituted by Christ as testimonies of application and as seals; this is acknowledged both by us and by our adversaries. Therefore, the promise also added to the external sign in the Lord’s Supper is none other than the promise of grace and of the gospel. And these words, “This is my body, which is given for you,” etc., are a promise added to the external sign, that is, to the taking of the bread and wine. For it is acknowledged by both us and our adversaries that the meaning of these words is this: that in the legitimate use, to those who eat this bread and drink this wine, Christ wills to give his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk. And unless Christ had promised that he would do this, we could not assert that it happens. But there are no other words in the institution by which this food and drink—namely, the flesh and blood of Christ—are promised to those who partake of the bread and wine. Therefore, these words, “This is my body, which is given for you,” etc., are a promise of grace.

II. Whenever in sacraments the signs are said to be the very things they signify, or to effect what properly belongs to the things signified, a promise of grace is annexed to the rite—that is, the reception of Christ and his benefits is promised to those who believe and observe the rite. Thus: Circumcision is the covenant; the lamb is the Passover; the Sabbath is sanctification; sacrifices are expiation; baptism is the washing of regeneration or baptism saves us, etc.

The meaning is: He who believes and is circumcised is in the covenant; he who believes, slaughters, and eats the lamb will be passed over by the destroyer; he who believes and keeps the Sabbath is sanctified; he who believes and offers a sacrifice has his sins expiated; he who believes and is baptized is regenerated and saved, etc. Now, here in the Lord’s Supper, the signs—namely, the bread and the wine—are said to be the very things they signify, that is, the flesh and blood of Christ. Therefore, a promise of grace is annexed to the rite of the Supper by these words. In other words, the meaning is: He who believes and takes this bread and this cup, feeds on the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood.

III. The meaning of these words, “This cup is my blood,” etc., is the same as that of “This cup is the new testament (or covenant) in my blood.” But these words, “This cup is the new testament,” are a promise of grace added to this rite. For the promise of the new testament is a promise of grace, since the new testament is a promise of communion with Christ and his benefits, received by faith alone. Therefore, these words, “This cup is my blood,” likewise add the same promise to the rite. In other words, the meaning is: He who believes and drinks from this cup, becomes a partaker of the new testament or covenant established with God on account of my blood being poured out, drinks my blood which was shed for him, and is a member of my body since by my blood he is nourished, enlivened, and strengthened, etc. Now, the meaning of the words regarding the bread and the cup is the same. Therefore, the words, “This is my body,” etc., are also a promise of grace.

IV. The meaning of these words, “This is my body,” is the same as that of 1 Corinthians 10:16: “The bread that we break is the communion of the body of Christ.” But these words, “The bread that we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” attach a promise of grace to the participation in the bread and wine. For communion with the body and blood of Christ is nothing other than grace—that is, communion with Christ and all his benefits, as promised in the gospel. For Paul is speaking of that communion with Christ by which believers are one body in Christ, a communion that cannot coexist with communion with demons. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the meaning of Paul’s words is this: He who legitimately, that is, with true faith and repentance, partakes of this bread and cup, has communion with the body and blood of Christ, becomes a member of Christ, and is cleansed from sins by his blood, etc. Therefore, these words, “This is my body,” etc., also promise the same grace to those who partake of this bread and cup in legitimate use.

V. What is promised in the sacraments only to believers is the grace of the gospel—that is, the spiritual reception of Christ and his benefits through faith. But communion with the body and blood of Christ is promised only to believers in the Lord’s Supper and in all the sacraments. The reason is: First, because even apart from the use of the sacraments, this is promised and given only to them. Second, because the promise of the sacraments pertains only to those for whom the sacraments were instituted. But the sacraments were instituted and granted only to believers; Paul excludes the rest from them. Therefore, the things signified by the external symbols are promised only to believers. Thus, this promise, which promises that those who partake of the bread and wine will be nourished by the flesh and blood of Christ, is a promise of grace, which is not received except by faith.

VI. A promise that has validity in the sacraments only in legitimate use is a promise of grace. For legitimate use is that which takes place in faith. Therefore, what is received only in legitimate use is not received except by faith. And a promise that is not received without faith is a promise of grace. But this promise—that we are to be nourished by the body and blood of Christ—is valid only in the legitimate use of the Lord’s Supper. For in such taking of bread and wine that is not sacramental, Christ is not eaten. In fact, outside of legitimate use—which does not exist without faith—no thing or ceremony has the nature of a sacrament, but is an empty ceremony without faith, just as a promise without faith is an empty sound. Therefore, this promise is a promise of grace.

VII. A promise that is signified by the rite of the sacrament is a promise of grace. For the ceremonies of the sacraments signify the same thing as the words of the promise, as the Apology [of the Augsburg Confession] teaches in the articles “On the Number and Use of the Sacraments” and “On the Use of the Sacrament,” where it says that a sacrament is a picture of the Word. Likewise, Augustine says, “A sacrament is a visible word.” But the promise that Christ’s body and blood will be given to us as food and drink is represented or signified by the giving of the bread and wine. Therefore, it is a promise of grace.

VIII. Every promise of participation in Christ is a promise of grace, because it is not received except by faith. First, because Christ himself dwells in our hearts through faith (Eph 3:17). Second, because the benefits of Christ are not received except by faith. But no one becomes a partaker of Christ himself without also partaking of his benefits. Therefore, neither do we become partakers of Christ himself without faith. These words, “This is my body,” promise participation in Christ. Therefore, they are a promise of grace.

IX. In every sacrament, there are only two things: the earthly, which is the external sign; and the heavenly, which is the thing signified. The earthly signs are for all, but the heavenly things come only to believers through faith; and the promise of these things is a promise of grace. In the Lord’s Supper, the earthly thing or sign is the bread and wine, while the things signified, or the heavenly things, are not only the benefits and efficacy of Christ but also the very flesh and very blood of Christ. Therefore, the promise and reception of these things is spiritual, occurring through faith only to believers.

X. The Apology [of the Augsburg Confession], in the article “On the Use of the Sacrament,” states that there are two things in a sacrament: the sign (namely, the external, visible ceremony) and the promise of the new testament or of grace. Thus, the reception of the body and blood of Christ must be apprehended either through the sign or through the promise. But it cannot be apprehended through the sign. Therefore, it must be apprehended through the promise of grace.

XI. Finally, the Apology [of the Augsburg Confession], in the same article, states that this very text is a promise of grace or of the forgiveness of sins. Our sacramentarian adversaries ²⁸ object: “The words ‘which is given for you’ are a promise of grace, but ‘This is my body’ is a promise concerning the body itself.” We respond: First, the Apology [of the Augsburg Confession] calls the entire statement a promise of forgiveness, because it divides the entire Supper into sign and promise. Second, these are parts of one single promise added to the sign—namely, that we are made partakers of Christ’s body and of the forgiveness of sins because of his body given for us.

 

Collected Theological Writings of Zacharias Ursinus

Table of Contents

Volume 1

1. Questions and theses briefly summarizing certain theological topics

2. Treatments of certain theological topics, namely

a. On Sacred Scripture

b. On God, one and three

c. On the creation of the world

d. On angels

e. On the creation of man

f. On the providence of God

g. On sin

h. On free choice

i. On the divine law

3. Theses briefly and clearly summarizing the true doctrine of the sacraments (1559) (PDF 364)

4. The true doctrine of the Sacred Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ (1564) (PDF 408)

5. Arguments that “This is My Body” is a promise of grace (PDF 528)

6. The true doctrine on the principal aim of the sacraments, that is, the confirmation of faith through the sacraments, defended against the sophistries of a certain ambitious apostate (PDF 531)

7. Response to the theses of a certain other person, by which the same doctrine on the principal aim of the sacraments is attacked (PDF 589)

8. Defense of the arguments by which Theodore Beza in his Confession confirms paedobaptism (PDF 622)

9. Ursinus’s Larger Catechism (PDF 645)

10. Theses on the office and one person of the Mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ (PDF 677)

11. Annotations on the theological theses on the sacraments proposed for disputation by Lucas Bacmeister (PDF 689)

Volume 2

1. Topical index

2. Commentary on Isaiah 1–21 (PDF 50)

3. Refutation of the Anabaptist and Socinian Catechism published in Poland (PDF 642)

4. Response to the arguments of Tilemann Heshusius concerning the opinion of the Church Fathers on the Lord’s Supper (PDF 680)

5. Annotation and response to the theses of the Confession of the Churches of Pomerania concerning the true presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Sacrament of the Supper (PDF 691)

notes

1. The ancient Latin name is Vratislavia, which is what one sometimes sees in titles of Ursinus’ collected works (his opera).
2. Derk Visser, Zacharias Ursinus The Reluctant Reformer: His Life and Times (New York: United Church Press, 1983), 30.
3. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 34.
4. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 38.
5. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 32.
6. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 32. Certainly she was dead by 1553, when Ursinus would have been about 19.
7. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 32.
8. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 39–43.
9. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 47.
10. On Melanchthon’s role in some of the controversies leading up to the 1550s see “The Benefits of Christ: Double Justification in Protestant Theology Before the Westminster Assembly,” in Anthony T. Selvaggio, ed., The Faith Once Delivered: Celebrating the Legacy of Reformed Systematic Theology and the Westminster Assembly (Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne Spear) (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007): 107-34.
11. For more on Osiander and related issues see, “Iustititia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70 (2006): 269–310.
12. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 61.
13. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 67.
14. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 68–69.
15. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 69.
16. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 61.
17. Visser’s argument, ibid., 70, that the study trip to largely Reformed cities and contacts tells us little about where Ursinus was headed theologically is unpersuasive.
18. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, 63.
19. His itinerary is clear since Ursinus kept an autograph book in which he collected the signatures of the many famous theologians he met. See Visser, ibid., 66.
20. The fact that the Reformed are having these very same arguments with Baptists today is prima facie evidence that, on these points, Baptists are substantially one with the Anabaptists.
21. Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 6.
22. Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 9. On the prelapsarian state see Harrison Perkins, Righteous by Design: Covenantal Merit and Adam’s Original Integrity (Ross-shire: Mentor, 2024). On the development of Reformed covenant theology see R. Scott Clark, “Christ and Covenant: Federal Theology in Orthodoxy,” in Herman Selderhuis, ed., Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
23. See Todd M. Smedley, “The Covenant Theology of Zacharias Ursinus,” PhD Diss. University of Aberdeen Department of Divinity and Religious Studies (2011) and R. Scott Clark and Joel Beeke, “Oxford and the Westminster Divines,” The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Essays in Remembrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Publication of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 3 vol. ed. Ligon Duncan (Ross-Shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2003), 2.1–32.
24. Visser, Zacharias Ursinus, xiii.
25. “Amice, quisquis huc venis: uut agito paucis, aut abi; uut me laborantem adjuva.” Samuel Clarke, The Marrow of Ecclesiastical History Contained in the Lives of One Hundred Forty Eight Fathers, Schoolmen, First Reformers, and Modern Divines…. (London, 1654), 771.
26. See Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, ed. The Book of Concord: Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. Charles Arand et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 219,3 (art. xiii).
27. From the Collected Theological Writings of Zacharius Ursinus: Ursinus, Tractationum Theologicarum, vol. 1 (Neustadt, 1584), 503–5. Thanks to Mr. Colin Germer, who checked my translation and suggested some improvements.
28. I think these are the Gnesio-Lutherans who insist on the physical presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• R. Scott Clark

  

  R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

  More by R. Scott Clark ›