# What is the difference between 3FU and the Westminster standards?



## The Conductor (Sep 4, 2013)

I may, due in no small part to these forums, yet be convinced of paedobaptism. If I am, I need to do some shopping around, creed-wise. I was just wondering if anyone had an analysis of the differences between the two.


----------



## jogri17 (Sep 5, 2013)

The Westminster Standards come from the same time period and was done by a committee in England and adapted by the Scotish Kirk. They were written at the period known as ''High Orthodoxy'' when Reformed Theology was in its highest stages of systematic development. The Three form of Unity on the Other Hand were developed over a longer period of time. The Belgic Confession was written earlier on in the development of Reformed thinking. It was written by 1 person more or less; the Heidelberg Catechism was written at a university for a prince to try to unite under a catechism Lutherans and the Reformed. Thus it is not very polemic. The original version didn't even have a question against the mass. In this context, the Arminians arose and claimed to be within the Confessional boundaries of the two documents, and thus the Canons of the Synod of Dort came into being just to clarify those points. Whether this was true or not, some theologians agree or disagree but certainly many Arminians were comfortable with the 2 and sincerely held to them. This it was sorta attached (this document was from High-Orthodoxy) to the other 2 in the Dutch Churches. 

The Westminster Standards stand on the shoulders to a large extent on the theological insights of the 3FU as well as practical pastoral and church experiences. As for the differences, there are very few. I suppose one could make the argument (I've heard it said) that the Canons of Dort flirt around a bit with Presumptional regeneration. I'm not a fan of that. Also the Heidleberg Catechism WRONGLY puts assurance as being essential to the essence of saving faith, while the Westminster Standards takes clear exception to this and denies this. This was a big debate in the 16th and 17th century and still is among theology geeks, but technology this is where I would take exception to the HC. There has always been discussion about the ''Puritan Sabbath vs. the Continental sabbath'' (i.e. Westminster Standards vs. 3 forms of Unity.). I mean did Calvin go bowling on Sunday? There is some debate among historians (even post-Richard Muller) on this subject. Most Reformed thinkers (with notable exceptions) seem to think there is a difference, but it is more of a difference in emphasis. Others like Packer and John Frame want to blow it up bigger than it is, but still hold to some sort of sabatharian principle. I think it is fair to say they both hold to the Lord's Day principle but given the Westminster Standards came later they (for practical reasons) wanted to think it out a bit further than the Continental churches did (who were maybe ok with leaving with a bit more open to individual churches or consciences), and thus the reason the ''Puritan Sabbath'' notion came into being. But from my (not exhaustive) reading of Puritan Literature, this is something that develops and is not as big as of a gap as many non-sabatarians want to make it out to be. 

just some late night thoughts


----------



## Jack K (Sep 5, 2013)

There's also a difference in tone and "feel" between the Westminster Standards and the Heidelberg Catechism, in particular. The Westminster is more of a comprehensive, finely detailed statement of faith. The Heidelberg is also a carefully crafted statement of faith, but has a more personal feel to it; pausing on many occasions to explain why the doctrine presented ought to make the believer feel joyful, thankful, or secure. In fact, it begins by summarizing the faith in terms of the believer's comfort: "What is your only comfort in life and in death?" (notice the personal use of "your"), while the Westminister Catechisms begin more cerebrally: "The chief end of man is to glory God and enjoy him forever."

Of course, _both_ are scholarly. _Both_ can speak to the heart. But there is a difference in tone. Having grown up with the Heidelberg, my first reaction to the Westiminster was to think it was rather dry and soulless. I'm sure there are also those who grew up with the Westminster and find the Heidelberg to be lacking in thoroughness and scholarly rigor.


----------



## Jake (Sep 5, 2013)

This document may be at least somewhat helpful, which has the WCF sections parallel with the Belgic Confession sections. It also has the LBCF: http://www.proginosko.com/docs/lbcf_wcf_belgic.pdf

There are no key differences in theology. There are some minor things (for example, the TFU does not take as strong of a stance on the 4th commandment, but in practice, many people that hold to this confession practice the Sabbath the same as those that follow the Westminster Standards). Some churches even hold to both sets of standards, such as the Heritage Reformed (associated with Dr. Beeke) and the RCNZ.


----------



## The Conductor (Sep 5, 2013)

jogri17 said:


> Also the Heidleberg Catechism WRONGLY puts assurance as being essential to the essence of saving faith, while the Westminster Standards takes clear exception to this and denies this.



Could someone tell me which question it is that says this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 5, 2013)

The Conductor said:


> Could someone tell me which question it is that says this?


I think the claim that there is real contradiction is overwrought.

Possibly HC21, when it states that true faith is comprised in part of "a firm confidence" or "deep-rooted assurance" (translations differ). Other catechism answers point out that particular things are given to us FOR our assurance, or that it is H.S.'s work (e.g. 1, 39, 44, 67, 73, 79, 86).

WCF 18.2 also tells us that we have "infallible assurance!," only that it does not so belong to "the essence of faith" that without it, one may not be said to actually have true faith, see sections 3 & 4 of the same chapter.

One of my favorite Q & A of the HC is the very last, which certainly shows how tender is the HC to those of weak faith.


> Question 129
> Q. What does the word Amen mean?
> A. Amen means: It is true and certain. For God has much more certainly heard my prayer *than I feel in my heart that I desire this of Him*.


----------

