# Dutch reformed church vs. Scotch presbyterian.



## jwright82

What is are the differences, besides in what confessions they primaraly subscribe to, between the dutch reformed tradition and a more scotch presbyterian tradition?


----------



## CharlieJ

I wonder if the Dutch would be more likely to explicate the covenants as three-fold, whereas many Scottish, following Thomas Boston, relate them as two-fold.


----------



## CharlieJ

Also, I'm not sure that this holds true for every denomination, but the Presbyterian tend to allow membership upon a credible profession of faith whereas the Continental Reformed require subscription to at least some of the doctrinal distinctives (I'm not sure of the exact extent).


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

I'm not Dutch, but I am Scottish and I am Presbyterian. I can certainly give you some of the distinctives of Scottish Presbyterianism. They may be true of the Dutch brethren as well. Some of you from the Dutch tradition can say if they are features within that tradition. Charlie J is correct in that all that is required for communicant membership is credible profession of faith. Some Scottish denominations will require adherence to other tenets such as use of KJV, "Thee's and Thou's" in prayer, headcoverings and skirts/dresses for women. Most Scottish churches (though not all) do not have membership classes. You simply meet with the Pastor who will interview you, recommend you to the Session and you then meet with them. Unfortunately for me I became a communicant in a denomination where you met just with the Session/Pastor. After giving my testimony, I remember being asked about effectual calling and sanctification. After that it was all a blur. They then left to consider my application for communicant membership. They did accept me.
However, some of the distinctives that I feel are prominent in traditional Scottish Presbyterianism are:

*Personal Piety*
At it's best prayer, scripture reading, fellowship with the saints, morally upright lives are noted amongst the devout. Some dear saints really do have an almost otherworldliness air about them. All of these are encouraged and expected. Experiential Calvinism is a prominent feature. At it's worst Scottish Presbyterianism despised culture and withdrew from it. Furthermore, any who were involved in the culture were regarded with suspicion.

*Evangelistic Preaching*
There is a regular diet of this type of preaching. The unbelieving are expected to be in attendance- and usually are. Invitations are usually made to them to come to Christ. It is usually a very moving, powerful and clear presentation of the gospel. There is longing that the Holy Spirit will be at work and draw many to Christ at these services. 

*Communion Seasons*
Traditionally the sacrament was observed in each congregation twice per year. Attending that there were pre-communion services beginning on the Thursday before the Lord's Supper was celebrated at the Lord's Day morning service. It really was a grand affair with visiting preachers and guests from other congregations. Nowadays most congregations in the Free Church have more frequent communion with fewer ,and sometimes none, preparatory services. I believe the Free Presbyterians and perhaps the Free Church Continuing retain the full communion seasons. Traditionally the Scottish churches have shunned Christmas, Easter, etc. However, the communion seasons were no different from the so called "holy days."

*Clergy/Lay Preachers*
Traditionally the pastors wore clerical collars. Nowadays, many do not or do so only on a Sunday or for weddings/funerals. Also there was and is the wide use of lay preachers. Some of them may be ruling elders, some not. A shortage of pastors is the prime reason for this.

*Baptism*
One need not be a communicant member to have one's child baptized. It still happens particularly in the Highlands. Some have written in defence of this. Personally, I do not understand it. It almost drove me into the arms of the Baptists!

Amongst some folks, particularly in the Highlands, there is this idea that they are waiting for God to bring his salvation to them. In a sense they are looking for a Damascus Road experience. So they continue their everyday lives. Some of them I believe are sincere. Some of them are believers but lack assurance. Others use it as an excuse to continue to live lives that are far from God. I guess it's a form of Hyper-Calvinism.

That's all I can think of this late on a Sunday night. Sorry, to my fellow Scots if I have aired our dirty linen in public. Be gentle on me!


----------



## N. Eshelman

21st Century Calvinist said:


> *Baptism*
> One need not be a communicant member to have one's child baptized. It still happens particularly in the Highlands. Some have written in defence of this. Personally, I do not understand it. It almost drove me into the arms of the Baptists!
> 
> Amongst some folks, particularly in the Highlands, there is this idea that they are waiting for God to bring his salvation to them. In a sense they are looking for a Damascus Road experience. So they continue their everyday lives. Some of them I believe are sincere. Some of them are believers but lack assurance. Others use it as an excuse to continue to live lives that are far from God. I guess it's a form of Hyper-Calvinism.
> 
> That's all I can think of this late on a Sunday night. Sorry, to my fellow Scots if I have aired our dirty linen in public. Be gentle on me!


 
There are Dutch Reformed churches that hold to a half-way covenant as well.


----------



## RTaron

> Traditionally the Scottish churches have shunned Christmas, Easter, etc. However, the communion seasons were no different from the so called "holy days."


Hi Donnie,
what are you saying here? I can't think of any aspects of celebrating Christmas or easter that are like the communion seasons of the old days in Scotland. Are they always on the exact day of the calendar each year? 

Nice job of summing up things in Scotland. Do you plan to go back?

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

In my experience, having maintained membership in both groups, first the FP and the Free Church and then the URCNA, I think there is a great unity in both groups to maintain the centrality of preaching in the worship service. 

A distinct difference that I have noted among the Dutch is that they don't pray as well. I realize this is very subjective and just my opinion, but I wonder if others might agree. 
The prayer before the sermon in the Scottish church is a work laid upon the minister where he " is to endeavor to get his own and his hearers hearts to be rightly affected with their sins, that they, may all mourn in sense thereof before the Lord, and hunger and thirst after the grace of God in Jesus Christ, by proceeding to a more full confession of sin, with shame and holy confusion of face, and to call upon the Lord to this effect: .... " DPW.

In the Dutch churches this is replaced by the reading of the ten commandments and a written out confession of sin that we read out loud.  

The other difference that I have noticed is that most Dutch churches don't read the scriptures as a part of worship.


----------



## Guido's Brother

RTaron said:


> In the Dutch churches this is replaced by the reading of the ten commandments and a written out confession of sin that we read out loud.
> 
> The other difference that I have noticed is that most Dutch churches don't read the scriptures as a part of worship.


 
One has to be careful about generalizing. The practice of some URCNA churches is not necessarily *the* "Dutch Reformed" practice. For instance, in most (if not all) Canadian Reformed Churches, we read the Ten Commandments, yes, but then that is followed by a prayer led by the minister which usually includes confession of sin. The reading of Scripture (usually whole chapters) is part of our worship as well.

As for other notable differences, no one has yet mentioned church polity. Many Reformed churches of a Dutch background follow the Church Order of Dort. Dortian polity is different than Presbyterian polity at several places. For instance, ministers are members of their local churches, not members of the presbytery/classis. As another example, the only permanent assembly in Dortian polity is the consistory. In Presbyterianism, I understand that the presbytery is also a permanent body. 

Another significant difference between _most_ Presbyterian churches and _most_ confessionally Reformed churches is the approach taken to confessional subscription. You don't see ministers or elders taking exceptions to the Three Forms of Unity in Reformed churches. It's all or nothing. Since the Three Forms of Unity are less detailed than the Westminster Standards, this is not as big an issue as it first sounds. 

There are other things too (singing of Psalms/Hymns, days of commemoration, etc.), but these will vary in both Reformed and Presbyterian churches.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## kvanlaan

> What are the differences, besides in what confessions they primarily subscribe to, between the dutch reformed tradition and a more scotch presbyterian tradition?



Are we looking at the 'cool factor' too? Cause the Dutch congregations are just _steeped_ in it. They rock.

Or is this not what you're looking for?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

If you ain't dutch you ain't much...

But seriously I have noticed a much more "ethnic" feel to the continental Reformed churches


----------



## Elimelek

With Scottish Presbyterian ministers like Andrew Murray influencing the _Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (Dutch Reformed Church)_ in Southern African, it becomes difficult to differentiate between the two churches. Things that changed in the Dutch Reformed Church is more or less the effect of the post-Apartheid milieu in which the church finds itself.


----------



## jwright82

Well I appreciate all the replies they are informative and entertaining. I was just curious why there is a distinction made between a dutch reformed tradition and a scotch presbyterian tradition if it seems that they are practically merged. I guess I was looking for theological distinctives. Like I know Kuyper and Van Til would be dutch reformed and I guess the puritans might be scotch presbyterian, do I have this right?


----------



## CharlieJ

You may find differences in prolegomena. Bavinck, Kuyper, and Van Til all function within a post-Kantian philosophical framework that emphasizes the limitations of rationality, whereas many of the Scots, following Common Sense Realism (as in the Princeton tradition), are going to emphasize induction and universally accessible rational argument.


----------



## JBaldwin

jwright82 said:


> Well I appreciate all the replies they are informative and entertaining. I was just curious why there is a distinction made between a dutch reformed tradition and a scotch presbyterian tradition if it seems that they are practically merged. I guess I was looking for theological distinctives. Like I know Kuyper and Van Til would be dutch reformed and I guess the puritans might be scotch presbyterian, do I have this right?



I don't know the answer to this, but I do know that a lot of the puritans had spent time in Holland prior to coming to America.


----------



## jwright82

Is their general disagreements over particular theological issues like common grace?


----------



## RTaron

Guido's Brother said:


> One has to be careful about generalizing. The practice of some URCNA churches is not necessarily *the* "Dutch Reformed" practice.


 
You are right Wes about generalizing from the URC to the Dutch. Would it be safe to say however that extemporaneous prayer is not encouraged in the Dutch churches, as evidenced by the read prayers at the administration of the Lords Super and at the administration of Baptism?


----------



## Guido's Brother

RTaron said:


> You are right Wes about generalizing from the URC to the Dutch. Would it be safe to say however that extemporaneous prayer is not encouraged in the Dutch churches, as evidenced by the read prayers at the administration of the Lords Super and at the administration of Baptism?


 
In most of our churches, the Lord's Supper is held every two months and baptism is as needed. So, I don't think that would have an impact. I do know that most of my colleagues pray extemporaneously. I only do so on occasion. I'm not very good at thinking on my feet and I like to prepare my prayers, just as I prepare my sermons. I've listened to too many prayers that sound like sermons and I want to avoid that.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Reformed churches following the Church Order have set forms for the administration of the sacraments, and an expectation these will be followed. This comes too close to a mandatory prayer book for many Presbyterians. Though I find nothing objectionable in the content of the Dutch forms, it is rather stilted to read these when doing a baptism and communion service, as I have done in URC congregations. Presbyterian directories of worship offer suggestions with instructions to use these or similar words, taking great pains not to require something not commanded in scripture. Of course, there is the history of the attempts to force a prayer book upon the Church of Scotland; one such attempt leading to the National Covenant of 1638.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

RTaron said:


> Traditionally the Scottish churches have shunned Christmas, Easter, etc. However, the communion seasons were no different from the so called "holy days."
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Donnie,
> what are you saying here? I can't think of any aspects of celebrating Christmas or easter that are like the communion seasons of the old days in Scotland. Are they always on the exact day of the calendar each year?
> 
> Nice job of summing up things in Scotland. Do you plan to go back?
> 
> Rick, Sorry I should have been clearer. Often the Communion Season will be held on the same weekends each year- eg 4th Sunday in February, 4th Sunday in August, etc.
> What I mean by comparing them to holy days is that there is no biblical warrant for the communion season, it is imposed upon the church and you are expected to be in attendance. It is tradition- not necessarily a bad one- but it is still of human origin. I have been blessed on many a communion season. in my opinion it seems bizarre that one can oppose Christmas, Easter, etc but also more or less make the communion season mandatory.
> 
> No plans to live in Scotland at the moment. Would love the opportunity to pastor a church here in the US.
Click to expand...


----------



## Romans922

Has anyone mentioned the different views of the Sabbath.

Dutch hold to the Continental View of the Sabbath whereas Scottish Presbyterians hold to the Puritan View of the Sabbath.


----------



## RTaron

> =21st Century Calvinist;785315
> It is tradition- not necessarily a bad one- but it is still of human origin. I have been blessed on many a communion season. in my opinion it seems bizarre that one can oppose Christmas, Easter, etc but also more or less make the communion season mandatory.



Bizarre? Distinguishing the Lords table from Christmas is a simple application of the Regulative Principle of Worship. 

But, I think we are off topic with this. The moderators do like rabbit trails. 
I'll post you PM.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Romans922 said:


> Has anyone mentioned the different views of the Sabbath.
> 
> Dutch hold to the Continental View of the Sabbath whereas Scottish Presbyterians hold to the Puritan View of the Sabbath.


 
I thought this myth had been dealt with already? 

Right here on the PB...


----------



## Irish Presbyterian

Below is David Ponter's answer to similar questions that you might find helpful:


> What are the differences between the different Reformed positions? I've
> notice that some have characterized Berkhof as being "conservative Dutch
> Reformed" I've also seen other scholars described as being "Scottish
> Reformed".
>
> What are the differences between these and other Reformed positions?
> What are their particular characteristics?

Essentially none.

The original Scots Reformed and the Continental Reformed were one in theology. Theology back then was a collective enterprise. The English visited and studied and taught in the Dutch and other Reformed centres, and many Continentals did the same in England and Scotland. The Scholastic style and Theology was shared by both British and Continental theologians.

It is easy to say that Puritanism, especially English, tended to be more devotional. But that is partly because we don’t have a lot of Continental devotional works available in English. So the total picture is lopsided. Plus, many English devotional theological works were translated into Dutch and Latin and exported to the Continent.

One of the leading Puritans was William Ames. Ames was a key figure in early 17th century Reformed theology. Ames not only picked and diffused Covenantalism and the scholastic method, but he also had a strong devotional (casuistic) bent. Ames had also studied under Perkins, but later studied in Holland, and was at Dort. So in this period there was great cross-pollination; which even extended into the New World, as works by folks like Ames especially were highly prized. And on the other hand, the great Continental Scholastic Peter Martyr Virmigli studied in England until the Marian persecution forced him to flee.

Some examples: Great similarity can be seen by comparing Owen with Turretin on soteriology - the latter being more mature and balanced however. Owen's treatise on Biblical theology, however reflects a Covenantal Theology that was reflected by folk on the Continent. Francis Roberts, an English Presbyterian, wrote a massive work on Federal theology which is very very scholastic and very similar in style to Witsius, who wrote on Federal theology much later. Ball was another English Presbyterian who combined the Scholastic style with Federalism. It is argued that Ball's recently published work on Federal Theology was the text the Westminster Confession of Faith divines leaned heavily on.

Later American Presbyterian formed its own definitive character, especially under the influences of folk like C. Hodge, Dabney, and Shedd. But theologically, the American Presbyterians were one with the Continental Scholastics of the 17th century. For example, the later 17th century scholastic Turretin's Institutes formed the backbone of Hodge's theology, not only Hodge, but also Dabney and Shedd. When comparing Hodge and Turretin: the basic organising structures in the two systematics are identical. The differences are new issues and a new style of writing; which moved away from the scholastic method. With Hodge we have the new 19th century textbook method in Systematics. This style is replicated in AA Hodge, Shedd, Boyce, and even Dabney. Dabney was a very independent thinker and quite easily comparable to Hodge in calibre.

In Scotland, Turretin also was the theological backbone of leading lights like William Cunningham.

Confessionally, the differences are that the Anglo-American Reformed (i.e. Presbyterian) made the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) the prime subordinate standard, whereas the Dutch had the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort. These confessional statements were all written earlier than the WCF, and so therefore are not as theologically sophisticated as the WCF. But that does not mean that the WCF was deviant. The WCF theology is perfectly mirrored in later 17th century and early 18th century Continental Scholastics, like Turretin, a' Brakel, etc.

The areas of difference between Anglo-American Reformed and the Continental Reformed were mostly in matters of ecclesiology. One difference is life term eldership (Anglo-American) versus limited term elders (Dutch Reformed). This has been an ongoing difference for centuries. The Anglo-Americans tended to Postmillenialism, and so did the Dutch, while those under the influence of Turretin, etc., were amillennial. This arose mostly in the later 17th century, and into the 18th and 19th. In the 20th, there seemed to be a reversal and Amillennialism gained ground.

The Dutch tended to presumptive regeneration. The English in the 17th century tended to presumptive non-regeneration. However, in the 19th century, under the influence of Hodge and Warfield, in the later 19th and early 20th centuries, presumptive regeneration came to the fore in American Presbyterianism. The Dabney-Thornwell line, which reflected the 17th century British view on this was pushed out of the foreground on this issue.

The American Reformed were more susceptible to the inroads of Fundamentalism from the 1920s onward, and often became narrow. The Dutch, however, were always a tad above fundamentalism and so were not so narrow in their outlook.

Also related to this was the Anglo-American Reformed commitment to an empirical Thomist apologetic - which was also the dominant mode in all the 16th and 17th centuries Scholastics (with the only highly debated exception possibly being Calvin himself). In Holland, however, Empiricism was never popular, after Decartes and Kant that is, and so under the influence of Abraham Kuyper, a non-empirical, non-Thomist approach to apologetics was developed, which has come down to us as Presuppositionalism. Those of the Hodgian-Warfield tradition tend to be Thomists, whereas those of the Kuyper-Bavinck position tend to be Presuppositional. Berkhof reflects the Kuyper-Bavinck tradition.

But also, apart from that, Berkhof reflects the Scholastic style incredibly, though this is merged with the early 20th century text book style, which makes for him to be an incredibly boring read.  That is to say, all his theological categories are incredible Scholastic to the point that to read him is to read the Scholastics (except for the Presuppositional angle I believe). Berkhof therefore is the child of the Scholastics but as mediated through Kuyper and Bavinck. One can see both of these strains in his Systematics. With the well received antecedent rise of Presuppositionalism in the Anglo-American Reformed camp, Berkhof's Systematic Theology has received a warm reception. I doubt that had Berkhof's Systematic Theology been published 50 years earlier it would have been well-received in America or by American Presbyterians.


----------



## Philip

jwright82 said:


> Is their general disagreements over particular theological issues like common grace?


 
The Dutch did have a tendency to downplay common grace and general revelation, whereas the Scottish tradition tended to overplay it. Again, it's the difference between a post-Kantian view and a common sense realist view.


----------



## jwright82

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is their general disagreements over particular theological issues like common grace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dutch did have a tendency to downplay common grace and general revelation, whereas the Scottish tradition tended to overplay it. Again, it's the difference between a post-Kantian view and a common sense realist view.
Click to expand...


I guess that might explain our little philosophical differences . Do you, or anyone else, agree with me that perhaps there is more of a difference in emphasis and terminology due to differing philosophical enviroments? I mean you know as well as I do that contanental philosophy and anglo-saxon philosophy is quite different.


----------



## Peairtach

kvanlaan said:


> What are the differences, besides in what confessions they primarily subscribe to, between the dutch reformed tradition and a more scotch presbyterian tradition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we looking at the 'cool factor' too? Cause the Dutch congregations are just _steeped_ in it. They rock.
> 
> Or is this not what you're looking for?
Click to expand...


What's particularly cool about Dutch Reformed churches? I've never been in one myself.


----------



## Philip

jwright82 said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is their general disagreements over particular theological issues like common grace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dutch did have a tendency to downplay common grace and general revelation, whereas the Scottish tradition tended to overplay it. Again, it's the difference between a post-Kantian view and a common sense realist view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that might explain our little philosophical differences . Do you, or anyone else, agree with me that perhaps there is more of a difference in emphasis and terminology due to differing philosophical enviroments? I mean you know as well as I do that contanental philosophy and anglo-saxon philosophy is quite different.
Click to expand...

 
Well, anglo-saxon philosophy does tend to have a fascination with science, mathematics, logic, and (later on) language. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, has tended to emphasize metaphysics and grand overarching theories to explain everything. The complaint of the Anglo-Saxons is usually that Continental theories are nice, beautiful, and all that, but have little connection to reality (Leibniz' _Monadology_ is a case in point---really nice, but no reason for me to accept it). The complaint of the Continentals is often that Anglo-Saxons neglect to provide a whole theory and just concentrate on individual issues without a thought for the theoretical consequences.

Examples: Thomas Reid versus Immanuel Kant in their responses to David Hume. Kant provides a great overarching theory to explain knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics and how they are possible. Reid simply asks why David Hume deserves so much credit, assumes the reliability of our faculties, and proceeds to use _reductio ad rism_ every time Hume wants to object.


----------



## kvanlaan

> What's particularly cool about Dutch Reformed churches? I've never been in one myself.



Well, for one, they're usually full of Dutch people, and that's tough to beat. 

But also, there is a tradition of Scripturally-based self-denial which is always interesting (where even the wealthy almost seem in competition to live a more simple life). I've posted this somewhere before, but I remember reading that one of the VOC directors' wives was of course wealthy beyond comparison, but had the diamonds in her rings set in charcoal so that they would not sparkle so brilliantly. That's a bit of a poor anecdote, but even at the church I attend now, there are men worth millions of dollars who you would not be able to pick out of a crowd of average middle-class people in how they live. I know one man worth several million dollars who lives in a modest apartment of about a thousand square feet. It is prim and tidy but not fancy, and the building is completely unremarkable except in that it is particularly ordinary. This is probably equally apparent among the Scots, but I've always seen it as a Dutch Calvinist quality, because I grew up seeing so much of it. (To be honest, it is dying off with the new generation, but is still visible for the most part for now.)

---------- Post added at 09:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------




> Well, anglo-saxon philosophy does tend to have a fascination with science, mathematics, logic, and (later on) language. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, has tended to emphasize metaphysics and grand overarching theories to explain everything. The complaint of the Anglo-Saxons is usually that Continental theories are nice, beautiful, and all that, but have little connection to reality (Leibniz' Monadology is a case in point---really nice, but no reason for me to accept it). The complaint of the Continentals is often that Anglo-Saxons neglect to provide a whole theory and just concentrate on individual issues without a thought for the theoretical consequences.



I think it was already mentioned that the Heidelberg Catechism is more of a big-picture work, while the Westminster Confession is more detailed. This is very in keeping with the statement above.


----------



## JennyG

one small footnote to a very interesting thread - don't anybody go to Scotland and use the phrase "scotch presbyterianism".
Someone is certain to tell you sniffily that _scotch_ is whisky - the inhabitants are *scottish*!!


----------



## jwright82

JennyG said:


> one small footnote to a very interesting thread - don't anybody go to Scotland and use the phrase "scotch presbyterianism".
> Someone is certain to tell you sniffily that _scotch_ is whisky - the inhabitants are *scottish*!!


 
You know I didn't even notice that, sorry to any Scottish people out there. I am Irish so I didn't even catch on.


----------



## MW

I tend to look at the differences in terms of fighting the same war but on different fronts. Like Australian soldiers in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. Same constitution, army, uniforms, training, structure, etc., but fighting differs on a city street and on a muddy trail. 

But I also recognise that the forces at work in the latter 19th century led to both armies making some inroads which virtually cut supplies and led to settlements which are significantly different to what preceded. That is where differences seem to become more pronounced and difficult to refer to as the same war.


----------



## JennyG

jwright82 said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> one small footnote to a very interesting thread - don't anybody go to Scotland and use the phrase "scotch presbyterianism".
> Someone is certain to tell you sniffily that _scotch_ is whisky - the inhabitants are *scottish*!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I didn't even notice that, sorry to any Scottish people out there. I am Irish so I didn't even catch on.
Click to expand...

 don't worry,- I wasn't even speaking for myself. If you ask me, the label "scotch" (for people) sounds just pleasantly old-fashioned (Victorian, if not Johnsonian - and it also makes me think of butterscotch) but it is a fact that as a body the Scots tend to get indignant about its use!


----------



## Steve Curtis

armourbearer said:


> But I also recognise that the forces at work in the latter 19th century led to both armies making some inroads which virtually cut supplies and led to settlements which are significantly different to what preceded. That is where differences seem to become more pronounced and difficult to refer to as the same war.



Rev. Winzer,

Could you expound a bit on what you see as these "inroads" and what are the "differences" they produced? I am not clear as to why you might think that it is no longer "the same war." I would have surmised that both camps (subscribing to the WCF and 3 Forms, respectively) have seen faithful adherents and dissenting opposition, as well. Yet, as the PB demonstrates, there remains a significant degree of harmony between the faithful of the two "armies."


----------



## MW

kainos01 said:


> Could you expound a bit on what you see as these "inroads" and what are the "differences" they produced? I am not clear as to why you might think that it is no longer "the same war." I would have surmised that both camps (subscribing to the WCF and 3 Forms, respectively) have seen faithful adherents and dissenting opposition, as well. Yet, as the PB demonstrates, there remains a significant degree of harmony between the faithful of the two "armies."


 
One obvious difference includes the changing attitude towards Romanism. Another is the more "prescriptive" nature of the sciences. One would do well to look at the changing table of contents in the Princeton Review as the 19th century progresses towards the "new world" phenomenon in which it culminated. There are a host of philosophical subtleties in the Dutch school like the abandonment of the nature-grace distinction, but discussion would be endless if we opened up these issues.


----------

