# 3 Forms and WCF



## Myshkin (Dec 12, 2005)

I am interested in a discussion as to why those on the PB who submit to these two respective confessions/catechisms do so, while not submitting to the other. I am not looking for simplistic answers like "Well, the WCF is better", or "My denomination adheres to this confession". I am hoping for something more substantial regarding their disagreements/agreements whether they be in wording, content, emphasis, etc.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 12, 2005)

This thread might be of some help.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 12, 2005)

I hold to both as secondary documents of faith, showing me the historical understanding of the Bible. I would use the one to understand the other. I make no exceptions; I just don't understand the things I don't understand. If I disagree, that is if I do, then it is something I more than likely don't understand as well. There are differences in statements, but they both represent the best of Reformed scholarship, because these, and only these, are adopted by the Reformed churches as comprehensive covenants, representing the "complete doctrine of salvation".


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 12, 2005)

I had actually read the Three Forms of Unity before ever reading the Westminster Standards, since the first confessional document I read in my initial study of Calvinism was, not surprisingly, the Canons of Dordt - thus, it was only natural to immediately follow-up with the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession. As such, I have always had a great appreciation for the Three Forms of Unity, and in fact, as others have mentioned here in the past, I would not be opposed to more churches eventually adopting them _and_ the Westminster Standards. Even so, as far as pointing people to one confession to which I hold as summarizing my beliefs, I point to Westminster, largely for three reasons:

1) I believe the Presbyterian form of ecclesiology to be the biblical one, and hence associate myself with Presbyterian churches rather than continental Reformed.

2) I believe the Westminster Standards have a greater precision and systematic order than the Three Forms of Unity, and while the latter are often (rightly) regarded as being more experimental than the former in many parts, I believe the systematic precision is the far preferable factor to emphasize as necessary in a confession of faith, because of the very nature and purpose of such a document.

The two elements of _systematic precision_ and _experimental content or presentation_ are _both_ imperative for the Christian's edification and spiritual nourishment, to be sure - but the _primary_ biblical means of that personal edification and nourishment for believers is not their reading of the confessions, but rather the preaching of the Word by the ministers of their church; and in preaching as such, the two aforementioned elements are both imperative.

The confessional documents, however, have a fundamentally different purpose than preaching, which is to define the doctrinal beliefs which the Church affirms and upholds. And in that purpose, it is not imperative that the documents have a particularly experimental nature, whereas it is of _utmost_ importance that they have a very precise and systematic outlaying and statement on the exact beliefs of the confessing church.

3) Fortunately, another reason I am able to consistently hold primarily to the Westminster Standards is because I have been providencially placed in areas and situations in which confessional Presbyterian churches are accessible, whereas such has not been the case with continental Reformed churches. That is not to say, by any means, that my ultimate commitment has been determined by this factor, and in fact I would put forth a great effort to find and get to a continental Reformed church if I believed the Three Forms of Unity to be superior to the Westminster Standards and presbyterial ecclesiology. Since that is not the case, howeve, I am simply mentioning this as a providencial occurence that has allowed me to both adhere supremely to the Westminster Standards in my personal conviction _and_ fellowship and serve in a church that confesses the same.


----------



## Casey (Dec 12, 2005)

> I am interested in a discussion as to why those on the PB who submit to these two respective confessions/catechisms do so, while not submitting to the other.


Isn't it true, though, that to submit to these creeds must one do so in an ecclesiastical setting? My church is Presbyterian and hence follows the Westminster Standards. My individual "preference" is of little weight, especially since I see no disagreement between the documents. My church's confession is _my_ confession, too!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> > I am interested in a discussion as to why those on the PB who submit to these two respective confessions/catechisms do so, while not submitting to the other.
> ...



I think Allan wants to discuss the personal preference in and of itself, _and_ the ecclesiastical situations. As you rightly noted, the former does not (and indeed cannot) nullify or control the latter, but vice-versa. Nonetheless, there is a reason people initially join one church or the other in the first place, as I somewhat touched on in the third point in my previous post - and furthermore, I think there is benefit to discussing the differences in these two sets of standards themselves even apart from consideration of people's subscriptions to one or the other.

I would be particularly interested in hearing the thoughts of those who subscribe to either set of standards (especially those who subscribe to the Three Forms) regarding point #2 in my previous post, dealing with the attributes of systematic precision versus experimental nature, and the degree of importance of each of those two factors in a confession versus in preaching, and the fundamental differences in purpose between those two things.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2005)

I personally became acquainted with the Westminster Standards before I ever heard of the Three Forms of Unity. My first exposure to Calvinism was via the Presbyterian Church (PCA) rather than the (Dutch) Reformed Church. So there was a cultural bridge than lead one way for me rather than another. 

But soon I got a copy of Philip Schaff's _Creeds of Christendom_ and I began to explore the differences. I found myself persuaded that Presbyterian polity was Biblical, and that the Westminster Standards were more doctrinally precise than other Reformed Confessions and Catechisms. In short, I found myself preferring the Westminster Standards over other confessional statements from the Reformation era because they seem most excellently conducive to what the Scriptures teach and most precise in their formulations (particularly in regards to the Sabbath-day). I agree very much with what Chris has said about his reasons for preferring the Westminster Standards. I also agree 100% with the 1646 Westminster Confession but have a number of disagreements with the 1788 Westminster Confession (as noted in this thread). 

Having said that, I continue to grow in my appreciation for the Three Forms (and the French Confession, Scots Confession, Second Helvetic Confession and others). Ursinus is one of my heroes of the faith and his commentary on the HC has been a tremendous blessing to me. As I study the Dutch Puritans of the Second Reformation and the work of the Synod of Dordt, my respect for them grows immensely. And the Belgic Confession has some most excellent articles such as 28 and 29, in particular. The Canons of Dordt are worthy of a bouquet of TULIPS! Truly the Synod of Dordt was a worthy council as I have noted here and its work ought to be treasured as a Biblical and ecumenical contribution to the church as I have noted here. 

I do think the Church of Scotland set the highwater mark for purity in faith, worship and practice. That's where I find the greatest example of piety, ecclesiology and worship in all of church history. But the body of Christ has many members all of whom complement one another. 

I read a comparison chart which looked the doctrinal emphases of Calvin's Genevan Catechism, the HC, the WSC and the WLC recently (all of which have a different number of questions and answers). It was interesting to see that 24% of the HC is devoted to the person and work of Christ compared to 13% of the WLC. And 18% of the HC is devoted to the law of God while 30% of the WLC covers that topic. And just 4% of the HC is devoted to the doctrine of the church while 13% of the WLC addresses that topic. These emphases complement one another as a whole.

Overall, I agree with the Dutch Reformed minister quoted below in another recent thread:



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Dec 12, 2005)

One aspect of my respect for the TFU is that I did profession of faith under their tutelage. When I agreed to submit to the church it was under the understanding that the church was teaching the true doctrine of salvation, and that that true doctrine was represented by the TFU. 

When I applied and was received into the OPC, the TFU, and therefore my confession of faith, were respected and affirmed by the Presbyterian church. This gave me the WS as an additional, not a replacement, set of standards representing that same "complete doctrine of salvation". So I can't divide the two, for they both represent the same thing, but in different ways.

When I found I had to break with the church, I found pages and pages of references in the WCF, LC, SC, Forms of Government and of Worship, that supported what I contended against my former church. But I found it best summarized, and most plainly stated in the BC. Some things I do not find as clearly in the former, but in the latter; and some things I do not find as clearly in the latter, but in the former. The Presbyterians have the Forms of Worship ; but the Form of Subscription is also of the TFU, and that says things that Presbyterians can only wish was included in the WS. 

But as I said, when I am called to uphold the faith in my walk, and I need guidance in what the church teaches in regards to well reasoned Biblical adherence, I go back finally to what I vowed to uphold in the first place. The WS are a very welcome addition to that.


[Edited on 12-13-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Myshkin (Dec 20, 2005)

Thanks for the responses. I am looking for more specific answers however. (and more respsonses hopefully) Input from those ordained under each confession would be appreciated.

Andrew, that percentage chart is very interesting. I have a strange love for statistics. Where could I find that chart? 

Chris, you are getting to the heart of my question.

Would you mind explaining more about your first reason? Apparently I have been under the false idea that presbyterian and continental reformed had the same polity. I thought reformed polity encompassed both.

Your second reason seems to be the response I hear most often: "The differences really exist only in style/form". Thank you for expanding a bit on that. Could you give some major and minor examples of how you think the Westminster standards are more "precise"?

As to point three, I have often wondered how your scenario often trumps the actual examination and familiarity of the confessions. I doubt that most have actually studied them both like you have, and by this process come to a rational and articulate position. I know, at least in my case, that there are those who accept a confession by faith without knowing why (perhaps this explains the lack of response to this thread; or maybe I just ask boring questions). It is just heritage, circumstance, or any number of other things that determines our subscription. I was first exposed to the WCF when I became a christian. In the past year I am just beginning to learn about the 3 Forms and appreciate them. 

Your response boils down to three areas: Doctrinal disagreement, style disagreement, and circumstance. I am hoping for more specifics regarding the first two.

Your input has been helpful.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Andrew, that percentage chart is very interesting. I have a strange love for statistics. Where could I find that chart?



Allan,

The chart that I referenced appears in the introduction to J.G. Vos' _The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary_, edited by G.I. Williamson, which is entitled _An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism_ by W. Robert Godfrey. This piece also appeared as "The Westminster Larger Catechism," chapter 6 in _To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly_, edited by John L. Carson and David W. Hall.


----------



## Myshkin (Jan 3, 2006)

Thank you Andrew.


----------



## Robin (Jan 15, 2006)

I came to the United Reformed church inexperienced in the classic confessions. It took me about 2 years studying the 3F to sort out questions about where I'd come from (a messy-Evangellyfish history) compared to new knowledge of the historic, Biblical faith via the Reformation. Only after (much struggle and vexation to my pastors) resolving the questions, did I join and receive membership. It's been 7 years, now.

The HC is designed on three elements: guilt, grace, and gratitude. (URC liturgy traces this.) The HC provides a clear way to correctly distinguish between Law and Gospel. (Rightly dividing the Word of Truth.)

I am forever grateful that the 3F clarified The Faith; helped me to know what I believe and why I believe it; lovingly exhorted and corrected me in real-life scenarios; it continues to: remind me of my sin; the grace Christ has given; frees me to live in gratitude, no matter how weak or sinful I am. I think the real Christian life is based on this cycle: face our on-going convictions of sin; recall and embrace Christ's work to free us; walk in gratitude, in the good works God has prepared beforehand.

Though the URC respects the Westminster Standards, I don't see it listed as one of the official confessions membership binds us to. No offense to my WS brothers here...but I've never missed it, frankly. I find nothing lacking in the rich feast of the 3F. 

See more details about the 3F here:

http://www.christreformed.org/doctrinevision/index.shtml?main

Blessings,

Robin



[Edited on 1-15-2006 by Robin]


----------



## JohnV (Jan 16, 2006)

> _from Chris ( Me Died Blue )_
> 1) I believe the Presbyterian form of ecclesiology to be the biblical one, and hence associate myself with Presbyterian churches rather than continental Reformed.


After reading and studying Jus Divinum I can and also can't agree with this. The idea of Presbyterianism I get from that book mirrors more the Dutch form of ecclesiology than today's Presbyterianism. Today's open pulpit idea was completely strange to them it seems, as they adhered more to subscription as the Dutch have it. And the concentration on the service of the offices in the administration of their authority seems to me to be better embraced by the Dutch than today's Presbyterians. 

But admittedly, I am comparing the old Dutch with the modern Presbyterian churches. When I joined a Presbyterian church, I was looking for the ecclesiastical foundation that the Dutch churches had lost. But I did not find it there. Now I'm back in a Dutch church, and its not there either, but is better than the Presbyterian churches I've been in. 

On the other hand, I was very excited to read all the forms of the WS. My first thought was that this was more geared to the individual believer, something that he could stand on even if the heirarchy in the church corrupted themselves. A person had more of a legal grounding. That has proven to be an overestimation, however. 

Anyways, I carry the WCF, the SC, and the LC with me when I go to church. They are different from the TFU, but do not disagree. If they profess an ecclesiology, which they do, then they profess only one, not two. They need to be held up to each other, not against each other. 

Robin catches the difference very well. The TFU are personal, heart-oriented, while the WS are more legal, mind-oriented.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2006)

With perhaps a few qualifications with Chris's post, he sums it up nicely for me:



> 1) I believe the Presbyterian form of ecclesiology to be the biblical one, and hence associate myself with Presbyterian churches rather than continental Reformed.
> 
> 2) I believe the Westminster Standards have a greater precision and systematic order than the Three Forms of Unity, and while the latter are often (rightly) regarded as being more experimental than the former in many parts, I believe the systematic precision is the far preferable factor to emphasize as necessary in a confession of faith, because of the very nature and purpose of such a document.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Jan 16, 2006)

Especially this part, I think:


> The confessional documents, however, have a fundamentally different purpose than preaching, which is to define the doctrinal beliefs which the Church affirms and upholds. And in that purpose, it is not imperative that the documents have a particularly experimental nature, whereas it is of utmost importance that they have a very precise and systematic outlaying and statement on the exact beliefs of the confessing church.


----------



## Robin (Jan 19, 2006)

> 1) I believe the Presbyterian form of ecclesiology to be the biblical one, and hence associate myself with Presbyterian churches rather than continental Reformed.



For what it's worth, the URC are Presbyterian by design...

R.

http://www.christreformed.org/doctrinevision/doctrine04.shtml?main

[Edited on 1-19-2006 by Robin]


----------

