# Is Westminster An Improvement Over 3FU?



## KMK (May 14, 2008)

I noticed that some subscribe to the 3FU instead of the WCF. I had always thought the WCF was considered an 'improvement' over the 3FU. What are some of the reasons churches would subscribe to 3FU instead of WCF?


----------



## shackleton (May 14, 2008)

I was taught the same thing, that the WCF improved upon the 3 forms, that it is more complete. 

It is mostly the Dutch or Continental churches that use the 3 forms and the ones I know don't seem as fond of the WCF. Whereas the WCF is predominantly used by Presbyterians. 

I believe the 3 forms was written by the Dutch area churches and the WCF committee was mostly Presbyterians.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 14, 2008)

KMK said:


> I noticed that some subscribe to the 3FU instead of the WCF. I had always thought the WCF was considered an 'improvement' over the 3FU. What are some of the reasons churches would subscribe to 3FU instead of WCF?



I presume you're asking about churches which are outside the Continental Reformed traditions (e.g. outside the RCA/CRC/URCNA/OCRC/CanRef/RCUS denominations, which derive from that branch of Reformed Christendom).
Those denominations will all hold to the 3FU for historical reasons (and since they wouldn't necessarily agree that the Westminster Standards represent an improvement). Similarly, churches deriving from Scottish Presbyterian roots will all hold the WCF (though not necessarily would all agree that the Westminster Standards are necessarily an improvement).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 14, 2008)

KMK said:


> I noticed that some subscribe to the 3FU instead of the WCF. I had always thought the WCF was considered an 'improvement' over the 3FU. What are some of the reasons churches would subscribe to 3FU instead of WCF?



Some of us come from churches of Dutch background. Therefore, those brethren subscribe to those standards, while those from a Scottish background adhere to the Westminster documents.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 14, 2008)

That is correct Erick. The only thing that truly separates the 3FU and WCF are there geographical, chronological, and political connections.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 14, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that some subscribe to the 3FU instead of the WCF. I had always thought the WCF was considered an 'improvement' over the 3FU. What are some of the reasons churches would subscribe to 3FU instead of WCF?
> ...



 I posted my above post before I noticed Todd's comments.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 14, 2008)

I did as well.


----------



## sastark (May 14, 2008)

I'm not sure that the Westminster _Confession_, by itself is an _improvement_ over the 3FU, but I do think the Westminster _Standards_, together as one, are more _thorough_ than the 3FU (especially when the Larger Catechism is considered).

I was raised on the 3FU and still have a very fond place for them, though I now reference the Westminster Standards more often.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 14, 2008)

I use the Heidelberg Catechism quite regularly. I also like the Second Helvetic which _is not_ part of the 3FU


----------



## sastark (May 14, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I use the Heidelberg Catechism quite regularly. I also like the Second Helvetic which _is not_ part of the 3FU



Ben, what is a good, clean online version of the Second Helvetic Confession? Are there any that include Scripture proofs?


----------



## jaybird0827 (May 14, 2008)

I have studied both. I agree that the Westminster Standards are more comprehensive than 3FU.


----------



## Stephen (May 14, 2008)

No, I would not say the WCOF is an improvement it is simply a different standard. Many reformed denominations would subscribe to both the WCOF and The Three Forms of Unity. There would be no contradiction between the two standards, but as Daniel stated it has to do with the background of the framers. These standards were all written at different times and for different situations.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 15, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> I agree that the Westminster Standards are more comprehensive than 3FU.



Therein lies a problem for some people. We must remember that there are areas of doctrine that Christians are _free to disagree over_. Some believe that the WCF forces one to adhere to certain beliefs that Christians are free to disagree over (e.g.the Pope being _the_ Antichrist). Hence, the WCF potentially splits up believers who should be publicly unified (as an expression of their unity in Christ). It can be a pity that when believers have so much of the reformed faith in common their confession forces them to be apart institutionally.

Blessings.


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> jaybird0827 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the Westminster Standards are more comprehensive than 3FU.
> ...



I guess that all depends on your definition of 'Reformed'. 

I have heard this criticism of the WCF/LBC as well but it usually comes from the anti-confessional camp. What are the criteria for establishing what goes into a confession and what is left out?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (May 15, 2008)

Stephen said:


> There would be no contradiction between the two standards



Are you sure? There is some differing opinions regarding the means of grace. The Scots say three the Dutch say two.


----------



## Galatians220 (May 15, 2008)

KMK said:


> I noticed that some subscribe to the 3FU instead of the WCF. I had always thought the WCF was considered an 'improvement' over the 3FU. What are some of the reasons churches would subscribe to 3FU instead of WCF?


 
Question 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism... Marriage Divorce Remarriage

I like the 3FU, especially the Canons of Dordt and the Heidelberg Catechism... My church, though, is WCF-dominant, although the Canons are often referred to in sermons, etc. I have therefore, but not for ethnic reasons as this is the U.S. and ours is becoming an "indigenously American" church, thrown in my lot with the WCF, except for one or two things here and there. 

Didn't the newer version of the WCF expunge the language regarding the Pope being the Antichrist? I was told that in the long ago, when I was a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Are we supposed to state in a confession who "the Antichrist" is - or are there many Antichrists? (1 John 2:18; 2 John 7 _et alii_...)

Also, I have this question, as I'm "just learning" in so many aspects: why are confessions or catechisms so relied upon? Can a person just be a thoroughly Reformed Christian and rely upon the Bible alone? Why and/or why not? (Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism in grade school, I sort of _*freak*_ when I hear catechisms and confessions being so heavily depended upon...  )

Thank you, Pastor Klein, for starting this thread.

Margaret


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Also, I have this question, as I'm "just learning" in so many aspects: why are confessions or catechisms so relied upon? Can a person just be a thoroughly Reformed Christian and rely upon the Bible alone? Why and/or why not? (Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism in grade school, I sort of _*freak*_ when I hear catechisms and confessions being so heavily depended upon...  )
> 
> Thank you, Pastor Klein, for starting this thread.
> 
> Margaret



Relying on the confessions and relying the Bible are not mutually exclusive. The _church_ is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) not individual Christians. The confessions are simply a systematic representation of the church's understanding of Biblical truth. 

Also, the confessions allow us to have discussions about large doctrines because we are already convinced of the truth of the details. We can discuss the differences between justification and sanctification, for example, without reinventing the wheel by quoting Rom chapters 3-8 each time.

Rich has written a very good defense of confessionalism on the home page of PB.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 15, 2008)

sastark said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I use the Heidelberg Catechism quite regularly. I also like the Second Helvetic which _is not_ part of the 3FU
> ...



The Second Helvetic Confession - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Davidius (May 15, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > There would be no contradiction between the two standards
> ...



I thought it was the other way around: the Dutch acknowledge the Word and the Sacraments, whereas Wesminster includes Prayer. Someone help!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (May 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen said:
> ...



Woops, you are right, I got them backwards:



> From WSC Q. 88. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
> 
> A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the *word*, *sacraments*, and *prayer*; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.


----------



## Kevin (May 15, 2008)

Of course it is better. It is the standard of the Scottish church, and all things Scottish are (by definition) the best in the world.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 15, 2008)

KMK said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I have this question, as I'm "just learning" in so many aspects: why are confessions or catechisms so relied upon? Can a person just be a thoroughly Reformed Christian and rely upon the Bible alone? Why and/or why not? (Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism in grade school, I sort of _*freak*_ when I hear catechisms and confessions being so heavily depended upon...  )
> ...



To say that we rely upon the Bible alone (or rather rely upon our interpretatation of the Bible alone) - in the sense of Solo Scriptura (not Sola Scriptura) - forgets that the church did not start with us. While we may revise the testimony of the church, we have to listen to it. If the wheel is broken it must be fixed, not re-invented.


----------

