A Patristic Root In Reformed Theology Part 1: What, Who, And Why?

Over my years of study, one essential thing I have learned is that the Reformation was a return to patristic roots not only in worship,1 but also in theology. It was not a wholesale repudiation of history; nor did it cast off the medieval and patristic writers who came before. For instance, article 9 of the Belgic Confession states,


We willingly accept the three ecumenical creeds—the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian--as well as what the ancient fathers decided in agreement with them.2


Those who subscribe to the Belgic Confession are confessionally rooted in the Fathers, especially the creeds they produced. But we also accept their writings, which agree with the creeds.


Following the footnotes is a great methodology to pursue if you want to understand a theologian and his work. When reading the Reformers, you regularly find them interacting with the church fathers, many of whom were rediscovered in the Renaissance and became the roots of the Reformation. We are only enriched when we, like the Reformers, return ad fontes—when we go back to the sources and interact with the Fathers.
​

As a church planter teaching through the Heidelberg Catechism, I was thrilled to follow the footnotes in Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism to a short patristic work on the Apostles’ Creed. In this article, we will explore the influential nature of this work on the Heidelberg Catechism.

​A Patristic Root In Reformed Theology Part 1: What, Who, And Why? | The Heidelblog