# Questions about 3 Forms of Unity.



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

OK, a few years back in church we did a study on the Heidelberg, I have reread it and pretty much agree with it (after all it is a Christian document, so I would say only Holy-Writ do I fully accept ,as do all of you) in any event I am thinking about making this a solid Reformed confession on the PB. For those who wonder at this, some Books of Common Prayer do contain the Heidelberg dating back to the time when William and Mary set up shop in London Town. I talked about this with Rich, and he told me that the Heidelberg would be under the Three Forms of Unity. After I expressed my ignorance (only the Heidelberg is in the BCP), he told me the other two were pretty much the same. Now, my question : Is stating that for all practical purposes I accept and believe the Heidelberg tantamount to accepting the Three Forms of Unity? I would love feedback and help on this since I do not want to claim to belive something I don't. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 4, 2007)

All Reformed churches (to the best of my knowledge) hold to the 3 Forms of Unity. One could, of course, hold to the Heidelberg on its own but the Reformed divines at Dordrecht believed that they were simply elaborating on the theology already expressed in the Heidelberg and the Belgic Confession. 

At the very least you won't find anything in the Heidelberg that contradicts the other confessions of the Reformed churches. And, as a classical Protestant, there would be nothing in any of the 3 Forms that you should disagree with anyways!


----------



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

A number of Anglicans hold the Heidelberg, I wanted to make sure there would not be a Continental reformed conflict against the English reformed view.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 4, 2007)

Max:

It depends on whether or not the 'English Reformed' hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship. This is explicitly laid down in BC Article 7&32 and HC Q&A 96 

I would think this would (perhaps) be the only significant difference between a confessional Anglican and the Reformed (besides issues of tradition and liturgy). I am trusting, however, that you would believe in limited atonement which, to the best of my knowledge, is not spelled out in the 39 Articles but certainly is in the Canons (CD 2.8+9)


----------



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

The Regulative Principals would be viewed very differently to an Anglican, as far as Holy-Days, Feast Days, use of tradition again I find myself coming full circle! Help!


----------



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

I can accept Heidelberg since it allows Normative Principal of Worship. If accepting the other two force Regulative, I must reject them in order to remain Anglican.As to #96 in the Heidelberg, it was used in the English Churches with a......flexible perspective. Even some Anglicans today hold the Theology of Heidelberg and do no feel 96 negates Normative Principals.


----------



## beej6 (Jul 4, 2007)

Is that really so? Apart from differing emphases, the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity agree... I'd be surprised if the former = Regulative where the latter = Normative Principle of Worship...


----------



## Poimen (Jul 4, 2007)

Max:

I don't know what the 'Normative Principle of Worship' is but the 3 Forms of Unity do not allow anything beyond the Regulative principle. 

Q&A 96 "nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word."

Compare to the WLC Q&A 109 "What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment? The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself."

It seems to be the same principle. See Wes Bredenhof's paper for more information on the Dutch Reformed understanding of the RPW:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/wholewes.htm

How one applies the principle, however, may differ as per denomination, congregation etc.


----------



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Max:
> 
> I don't know what the 'Normative Principle of Worship' is but the 3 Forms of Unity do not allow anything beyond the Regulative principle.
> 
> ...


You hit the nail on the head Brother in regard to how one applies principles.


----------



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

Most people are unaware the Reformed Episcopal Church was created to combat the influence of the Tractarian, Anglo-Catholics. This was a group, which to say the least went FAR beyond Scriptural mandates in worship. For their part.........they called us "Presbyterians with a Prayer Book.)!


----------



## Coram Deo (Jul 4, 2007)

I am a Presbyterian Credo-Baptist with a prayer book.... 





I follow Jesus said:


> Most people are unaware the Reformed Episcopal Church was created to combat the influence of the Tractarian, Anglo=Catholics. This was a group, which to say the least went FAR beyond Scriptural mandates in worship. For their part.........they called us "Presbyterians with a Prayer Book.)!


----------



## bookslover (Jul 4, 2007)

Poimen said:


> All Reformed churches (to the best of my knowledge) hold to the 3 Forms of Unity.



Not so. The OPC holds to the Westminster Standards as its secondary documents. There was some discussion some years back about adding the Three Forms of Unity to the Westminster standards, but the matter was allowed to drop, due, apparently, to lack of interest.

Also, there are different nuances and emphases of doctrines between the two sets of standards. I'm not sure how one could get them to "mesh".


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 4, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Not so. The OPC holds to the Westminster Standards as its secondary documents. There was some discussion some years back about adding the Three Forms of Unity to the Westminster standards, but the matter was allowed to drop, due, apparently, to lack of interest.
> 
> Also, there are different nuances and emphases of doctrines between the two sets of standards. I'm not sure how one could get them to "mesh".



I think that what Daniel meant by "Reformed" is not Presbyterian but Continental-polity churches (ie., within the Dutch tradition) -- not "Reformed" as in 5-point Calvinism but rather wrt church polity, which would exclude Presbyterian churches.


----------



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

beej6 said:


> Is that really so? Apart from differing emphases, the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity agree... I'd be surprised if the former = Regulative where the latter = Normative Principle of Worship...


Say what? At what juncture did I make mention of the Westminster?


----------



## etexas (Jul 4, 2007)

bump


----------



## beej6 (Jul 5, 2007)

Max, I apologize, I didn't read your post (that I replied to) carefully enough, _mea culpa._


----------



## AV1611 (Jul 5, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> OK, a few years back in church we did a study on the Heidelberg, I have reread it and pretty much agree with it (after all it is a Christian document, so I would say only Holy-Writ do I fully accept ,as do all of you) in any event I am thinking about making this a solid Reformed confession on the PB. For those who wonder at this, some Books of Common Prayer do contain the Heidelberg dating back to the time when William and Mary set up shop in London Town. I talked about this with Rich, and he told me that the Heidelberg would be under the Three Forms of Unity. After I expressed my ignorance (only the Heidelberg is in the BCP), he told me the other two were pretty much the same. Now, my question : Is stating that for all practical purposes I accept and believe the Heidelberg tantamount to accepting the Three Forms of Unity? I would love feedback and help on this since I do not want to claim to belive something I don't. Grace and Peace.



I hold to the Three Forms of Unity insofaras they agree with the Articles of Religion. The Belgic Confession teaches a Reformed/Presbyterian polity over against episcopalianism and I disagree with the 3FofU on this.

That said, the CofE under James I sent bishops to the Synod of Dordt and signed the Canons. I would therefore argue that all Anglicans should affirm the Canons of Dordt.


----------



## etexas (Jul 5, 2007)

beej6 said:


> Max, I apologize, I didn't read your post (that I replied to) carefully enough, _mea culpa._


It's all cool, after I looked at it again i "reckoned" you had not read my first post. No harm no foul, done it myself!


----------



## Poimen (Jul 5, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I think that what Daniel meant by "Reformed" is not Presbyterian but Continental-polity churches (ie., within the Dutch tradition) -- not "Reformed" as in 5-point Calvinism but rather wrt church polity, which would exclude Presbyterian churches.



Yes that is what I meant.


----------

