# Westminster Standards PLUS the 3FU?



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jun 7, 2013)

This is a long read, but something I'm thinking of. A friend recently informed me that Dr. R. Scott Clark has coined a quaint term: The 6 Forms of Unity, to wit, the combination of the oldie goldies of the Reformed world, the best of the continent and the Puritan stripe as well - Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Larger Catechism, Westminster Shorter Catechism, The Canons of Dordt, The Belgic Confession, and The Heidelberg Catechism. I'd double down and include the Solemn League and Covenant, and the Directories for Publick & Family Worship. So I'm thinking about a 9FU.

It seems to me that those two sets of documents well compliment each other. Where they are in conflict or the other is silent, putting those two in the same room will allow them to rub the rough edges off one another. For a couple examples: WCF/LC/SC could use help in the Assurance dept. - the Heidelberg amply supplies as much. Where the WCF lays down a cautious approach to the death of infants, the Canons proffer great charity toward the children of believers. The 3FU is in need of strong Sabbath theology. That's readily found in the Westminster Standards. 3FU could give great support of the unconditional nature of the Covenant of Grace (helping to keep a watch on the term "condition,") and the Westminster could bring the Covenant of Works to the table as a suitable term for Jehovah's first dealing w/Adam & Eve (while I don't think they contradict, the two together could put Federal Vision to bed.) The Heidelberg statement on the issue of images would sound darling with the Westminster statements which address the same. While no fault can be found with Westminster's handling of Arminianism, what strength would be lent from the Canons of Dordt? The witty, consummate polemic nails down the doctrines of Grace. Who cannot love the savory, sharp styling of the Belgic with Biblical responses not just footnoted but placed within the text with commentary surrounding to buttress the ironclad Westminster posing? Article 36's original language with Westminster's 1647 "Of the Civil Magistrate" would put us on track for proper church/state relations. The paleo-Dutch handling of "common grace" (thinking Protestant Reformed/RPCGA understanding) would put the Scotch/Puritan on a more solid footing. Westminster's Covenanting would be my preferred understanding of society's responsibility to confessing Christ nationally and I don't see that it violates 3FU (at least not in the early days of it's usage.) Heidelberg's personal, devotional style is darling on the tongue of the saint! Where it isn't better said in the 3FU, the Westminster can teach them about singing the Psalms...and them only! These are a few I'll name.

I think it'd be Scottish Church who holds 1647's documents adopting nothing other than the Canons. They alone are worth their weight in GOLD! While the thought has been long on my mind, reading "The Work of the Holy Spirit" by Drs Englesma and Hanko really calcified it. The book is a publication of a set of lectures on the topic of the third person of the Trinity and His ministry, work, identity, etc. I understand that Puritan Seminary honors both traditions.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm fast becoming a Scutchman.  Well, it shouldn't be hard to understand. I've long been committed to the 1647s and I've had a pretty steady diet of Englesma, Hoekesema, Hanko and Langerak lately.

So, now that I've alienated both my Westminsterian friends and the Dutch folk too, tell me what you think? Could you see the two (or a contingent from both) coming together? Would you (from whichever camp you're from, assuming one or the other) welcome better ecclesiastical relations and sharing of standards with the other? Is there something I'm missing that you'd add? I certainly don't have a solid understanding or training in either set and can't say that I agree completely with both. So, please note that this man is a whelp in the faith and am still thinking through most of these matters.


----------



## Jake (Jun 7, 2013)

I think they are actually both used together in some denominations. For example, the 
Reformed Congregation of New Zealand (RCNZ) holds to both the Westminster standards and the three forms of unity. We have some members of that church here that could probably answer your questions about how that works. Another that does this from what I can tell is the ERQ, which is also represented on the board.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jun 7, 2013)

As a friend who holds to the "Six Forms of Unity" and as a member of the Free Church of Scotland (continuing), I may one day embrace your 9FU 
 

I picked up the term from R. Scott Clark but when I think of the "Six Forms of Unity," I immediately think of HRC - Joel Beeke.

I would absolutely love to be a part of a "Six Forms" COMMUNITY but I thank the LORD that He has me in the FCC because I couldn't think of a better church to covenant with than the FCC at this point in my pilgrimage!


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jun 7, 2013)

Thanks for the thoughts, Jess and Jake. Jess, btw everyone, was the one who told me of this idea. Jake, that's interesting. I'd searched around but had never so much as heard of RCNZ. I appreciate that.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 7, 2013)

I'm appreciative of both traditions. Certainly, it's great that we have both sets of documents as resources, for exactly the reasons you mention. And the "6FU" concept is excellent for outfits like the PuritanBoard, which bring slightly diverse groups together. I wonder, though, whether having that many documents that say largely the same thing in different ways would make for a good set of church standards.

Sadly, the Reformed/Presbyterian traditions have a number of people who either:
1) enjoy playing "gotcha" with the standards, looking for error in others and being eager to bring accusation
2) play "fasttalk" with the standards, looking for loopholes or alternate meanings that allow them to explain away certain points

I suspect that having that many standards, largely addressing the same topics, would increase the occurance of #1 and probably of #2 also. Rather than love these documents more, believers might come to see them as a headache due to how they get abused.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jun 7, 2013)

Jack K said:


> I'm appreciative of both traditions. Certainly, it's great that we have both sets of documents as resources, for exactly the reasons you mention. And the "6FU" concept is excellent for outfits like the PuritanBoard, which bring slightly diverse groups together. I wonder, though, whether having that many documents that say largely the same thing in different ways would make for a good set of church standards.
> 
> Sadly, the Reformed/Presbyterian traditions have a number of people who either:
> 1) enjoy playing "gotcha" with the standards, looking for error in others and being eager to bring accusation
> ...



That's a good thought...there's no doubt a lot of legitimacy to it. Hmmm, let me stop and think some.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jun 7, 2013)

Scripture gets abused too...
No creed, one Confession, "Six Forms" or nine... 
Some people will always enjoy playing "gotcha" and others will always play "fasttalk" 

I am still a "Six Forms" kinda lady 
I love the...
Belgic
Heidelberg
Westminster Shorter
Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminster Larger 
& Canons of Dordrecht


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jun 8, 2013)

The Heritage Reformed Churches hold to all six of these documents as well.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jun 8, 2013)

N. Eshelman said:


> The Heritage Reformed Churches hold to all six of these documents as well.



Yepparoo!



> We believe that the basis of truth and education must be found in the Triune God and His infallible Word. All core beliefs must be based upon principles established in the infallible sixty-six books of sacred Scripture.
> These core beliefs are explained in our doctrinal standards:
> *
> * The Heidelberg Catechism
> ...


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jun 8, 2013)

N. Eshelman said:


> The Heritage Reformed Churches hold to all six of these documents as well.



"THE HERITAGE REFORMED DENOMINATION:
Who We Are & What We Believe
The Heritage Reformed Congregations (HRC) is a solidly Biblical, Reformed, and orthodox denomination that is confessionally rooted in the Continental Reformation and influenced greatly by English Puritanism. The word “Heritage” in the title reflects a commitment and desire to be true to this rich legacy."

You're right!


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jun 8, 2013)

I agree with the idea of six forms but I am not sure how well they could work out practically. Having six confessional documents that cover many of the same topics only in a different historical context could leave a denomination open for someone trying to exploit minor disagreements in the confessions or trying to find loop holes. It is already generally accepted that the WS and the 3FU compliment each other, so in my opinion it may be more helpful to have a church that has stricter confessionalism to one of them instead of trying to hold to all six. The number of confessions you have is not really important if as a whole they are not held to.


----------



## PaulCLawton (Jun 10, 2013)

I seem to remember a URCNA congregation in California (?) adopted the WSs along with the TFU a while back.


----------



## Zach (Jun 10, 2013)

I was told that the Reformed Church in New Zealand has adopted both as well. There are a few places in which they are at odds though, correct?


----------

