Olá, Filipe! Muito interessante o texto. Acredito que nós reformados precisamos estar atentos ao tema e evitar uma tendência quase memorialista que é comum em alguns círculos. Apesar disso, acredito que há mais nuances quanto à teologia do Catecismo de Heidelberg. Selecionei algumas citações abaixo pra esclarecer o que quero dizer.

Citações do comentário do Catecismo de Heidelberg de Zacarias Ursino:

None but those who have faith receive from the minister the signs, and from Christ the things signified; and when hey thus receive both in their proper use, we have what is called the sacramental union. (p. 626)

Because the benefits of Christ are received only in the proper use of the sacraments. But the wicked do not use them properly, for they receive them unworthily, having no faith, or repentance. (p. 630)

To whom there is nothing promised in the word, to him the sacraments seal nothing. But the word promises nothing to the wicked; for all the promises of the gospel are made upon the condition of repentance, and faith. The sacraments, therefore, neither seal, nor confer any thing upon the ungodly. (p. 630)

The word is that through which the Holy Spirit commences and confirms faith in us, and for this reason, should go before the sacraments. The sacraments are means through which the Holy Spirit confirms faith already called into exercise, and for

this reason ought to follow the word. (p. 633)

Baptism without the promise would, indeed, be a mere naked sign; and to unbelievers, who do not receive the promise with faith, it is only an external washing with water, as in the case of Simon Magus; but the promise and the thing signified are joined with the sign in the proper use of the sacraments. (p. 642)

(...) baptism is a certain sign of the remission of sin, and of everlasting life to them that believe: for the figurative speeches which are used in reference to the sacraments are to be interpreted in the same manner as the figurative speeches in reference to sacrifices. Sacrifices are often called expiations for sin, and yet the apostle Paul affirms that the blood of bulls, and of goats, cannot take away sin. So when it is said, “Baptism saves us,” is “the washing of regeneration,” and “the washing away of sin;” it is the same thing as to say, Baptism is the sign of all these things. (p. 654)

Algumas conclusões sobre a posição de Ursino (e consequentemente do catecismo):

- O batismo não confere fé a um descrente, e sim confirma e fortalece a fé já existente.

- A explicação para o caso dos que são batizados e perecem não é que eles receberam graça mas a perderam por não serem eleitos, e sim que eles não receberam graça alguma no batismo.

- Os textos bíblicos que falam sobre o batismo salvar, lavar pecados e ser a lavagem da regeneração são casos de metonímia: o sinal é dito no lugar daquilo que ele representa (assim como era com os sacrifícios no AT, que são chamados de expiação, mas não tiravam pecados).

Isso me faz concluir que a posição de Ursino e do Catecismo é diferente daquela defendida no artigo, ao menos nesses três pontos acima. O que acha?

Um abraço, e que Deus o abençoe!

P.S.: As referências ao comentário de Ursino são baseadas nessa edição: http://www.rcus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/UrsinusZ_HC-Commentary-17-NEW-HC.pdf

Written by

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store