# WCF VS. 3FU



## Bryan (Dec 11, 2003)

Why would someone choose to affirm one over the other? 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## JohnV (Dec 11, 2003)

Bryan:
The reason I prefer the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt, is that I have a deep heritage in the Dutch Reformed setting. They don't say as much technically; in fact they say less in that respect. But for me they are fuller and more personal, and therefore say more to me that way. 

I am new to the Westminster Standards. Give it time, and I will say the same for them. I don't prefer the one over the other for doctrinal reasons. 

Where many like to defend the Christian faith with their apologetic methods, my very favourite way is by Belgic Confession, arts. I and II. I cannot imagine being without them for instruction. That's one reason, at least.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 11, 2003)

Heritage usually is the cause.

I personally love them all, especially the WCF and the Canons of Dordt. (I may even do my disseration as a commentary or exposition of Dordt.)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 11, 2003)

I think they differ only in emphasis. I prefer the WCF because it is more precise in it's terms than the 3 Forms. But the 3 forms do have a personal/devotional feel to them that I find refreshing. Plus I love the way the Heidelburg Catechism really sets out the proper use of the law for the believer in much clearly terms than I think WCF does. But that's just my opinion...

Puritan Sailor


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 13, 2003)

I admit, even though I am a PCA guy and I plan on perhaps being ordained in the PCA one day, I am more favorable toward the 3FU than the Westminster Standards, and in particular, I LOVE the Heidelberg Catechism. I even changed my AOL instant messenger screen name in honor of Heidelberg. Send me a message sometime (HeidelbergCQ1).


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 13, 2003)

To be honest, I think way too much is made of the differences and distinctions between WCF and 3 Forms. Anyone who believes that the WCF is &quot;non-pastoral&quot; and should be more like the 3FU should read WCF 3.8. And there are portions of the 3FU that are precise and technical.

They are both excellent, simply produced in different millieus, and they testify to the unity of God's Church.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 13, 2003)

I think I am richer for having both now. Craig Soudersma has become more Dutch, and I more Presbyterian, and we're both richer for it. I wouldn't give up the WCF. My love for these standards is growing.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 14, 2003)

[quote:a7f6b31d6a]
Craig Soudersma has become more Dutch
[/quote:a7f6b31d6a]

Actually, John, I think that even though I like the 3FU, since I have recently gotten in touch with my Scottish roots, I will change my name again. My name is now (with bagpipes in the background) Craeg Souter, in the name of my ancestor Colin, son of Angus Souter of Scotland. :biggrin:


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Mar 30, 2004)

*Why I prefer the 34U*

Fred,

While I can imagine that within Reformed circles there is much 
debate comparing the pros and cons of both standards I think that
there is much to glean from this ongoing discussion.

Take me for instance. I cut my teeth, Reformedly speaking, in 
Presbyterian circles. I took up the challenge to memorize the 
Shorter Catechism, which I accomplished. I've meantioned this 
only to say that I love this standard and it will be with me for
my whole life.

Due to some strange circumstances I had to leave the RPCNA Church 
I was a member of and began attending a Canadian Reformed Church.
Of course it was there that I was introduced to the 34U. While
speaking respectfully, things that are different are not the same
as our KJV Only brothers consistantly remind us.

Case in point: the Doctrine of the Church. The WCF says in regards 
to the &quot;Invisible&quot; Church: &quot;the whole number of the elect that 
have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the
head thereof...(25-1). This Church stands in contrast to the 
&quot;Visible&quot; Church of which is said is &quot;more or less pure.&quot;

The Belgic confession, however contains no such such notion. In
fact the true Church is defined by its visible attributes in 
Article 29 of the BC (those attributes being doctrine, offices,
worship, etc.). In the 34U the church is only visible. 

The question is therefore how are Reformed believers/churches
to deal with one another in these issues?

BTW Fred, I have a &quot;Sermon&quot; manuscript that I'm going to be
preaching at a hospital. I thought it a good idea to bounce it
off someone in seminary before I actually preach it. Do you 
mind looking over it and offering some suggestions?

Tom


----------



## Saiph (Mar 30, 2004)

I like the WCF best, but the others are very helpful.

I also like te 39 articles as a brief doctrinal statement.
Anyone else ? ?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:44ee138c3a][i:44ee138c3a]Originally posted by Richard B. Davis[/i:44ee138c3a]
Fred,

While I can imagine that within Reformed circles there is much 
debate comparing the pros and cons of both standards I think that
there is much to glean from this ongoing discussion.

Take me for instance. I cut my teeth, Reformedly speaking, in 
Presbyterian circles. I took up the challenge to memorize the 
Shorter Catechism, which I accomplished. I've meantioned this 
only to say that I love this standard and it will be with me for
my whole life.

Due to some strange circumstances I had to leave the RPCNA Church 
I was a member of and began attending a Canadian Reformed Church.
Of course it was there that I was introduced to the 34U. While
speaking respectfully, things that are different are not the same
as our KJV Only brothers consistantly remind us.

Case in point: the Doctrine of the Church. The WCF says in regards 
to the &quot;Invisible&quot; Church: &quot;the whole number of the elect that 
have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the
head thereof...(25-1). This Church stands in contrast to the 
&quot;Visible&quot; Church of which is said is &quot;more or less pure.&quot;

The Belgic confession, however contains no such such notion. In
fact the true Church is defined by its visible attributes in 
Article 29 of the BC (those attributes being doctrine, offices,
worship, etc.). In the 34U the church is only visible. 

The question is therefore how are Reformed believers/churches
to deal with one another in these issues?

BTW Fred, I have a &quot;Sermon&quot; manuscript that I'm going to be
preaching at a hospital. I thought it a good idea to bounce it
off someone in seminary before I actually preach it. Do you 
mind looking over it and offering some suggestions?

Tom [/quote:44ee138c3a]

Tom,

Let me have some time to look at this issue of the Church. What you have said intrigues me.

As for the sermon, for what it is worth I would be happy to read it. Send it to me by email.


----------



## yeutter (Mar 31, 2004)

*Three forms of unity vs Westminster*

I prefer the three forms especially the Heidelberg because the approach they have to the sacraments lends itself less easily to Zwinglianism.
Both Dordt and Westminster are mature statements of the doctrines of grace. When it comes to questions related to the soveriegnty of God I can not say one is any respect superior to the other


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Apr 3, 2004)

Yutter,

Interesting. How is it that the Belgic confession makes this clearer than the Westminster standards?


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Apr 3, 2004)

Fred,

Check it out:

John Murray: "Collected Writings." (Banner of Truth. 1976. Vol. 1. p. 236)

This article I found useful on the topic. From a Presbyterian, nonetheless! 

Tom


----------



## JohnV (Apr 3, 2004)

[quote:657577da81][i:657577da81]previously posted by Richard B. Davis[/i:657577da81]
The Belgic confession, however contains no such such notion. In fact the true Church is defined by its visible attributes in Article 29 of the BC (those attributes being doctrine, offices, worship, etc.). In the 34U the church is only visible. [/quote:657577da81]
I'm not sure you can say that, Richard. The article you refer to has to do with distinquishing the true church from the false church. It may not be assumed that the article refers to a doctrinal stance on what fully constitutes the universal church. In each era of the church the church has been visible, and therefore characterized the elements this article speaks of. But that does not limit the universal church only to the visible. The witness of the saints of old still remains, and they still speak to us. In order to remain one with them we do not depart from their fellowship in understanding what it is to submit to the Word of God. 

Our day cannot say to a previous era, &quot;Well, that was good for your time, but it does not bear on our time.&quot; The principles remain the same. We may not, for instance, assume that our time allows women to hold office, without the commensurate need to find unity with those who believed in another era that this was not allowed. We may not simply cut ties with the past, as if what was done before was OK for them, and what we do now is OK for us, when the reference is to the exact same principle, such as women holding office. 

So we need to identify with the church of history as well as the church of the present to hold to accountability. It was Calvin who found in the history of the church the grounds for judging the church of his day for many more things than Luther did by just referring to Biblical teaching as related to his time and circumstance. Calvin was a scholar with an incredible memory, on which he relied a great deal for his daily teachings as well as his many references in his commentaries and Institutes. These references were witness from the church of the past to the church of his time, and ours as well.


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Apr 4, 2004)

John,

I don't disagree with anything you've said. However what I was trying to say is that in the Belgic Confession, as opposed to the Westminster, the notion of an &quot;Invisible&quot; Chuch is not found.

Albeit the poriton I quoted has to do with diserning the true church from the false one. However by saying that the Visible church is an admixture of true and false doctrines and then not going on to speak about how to disern how a church is reckoned to be true, the Westminster and Belgic confessions are at odds with one another. 

Nor do I mean that that the church is not catholic.

Here is an interesting article that deals with this subject:

http://spindleworks.com/library/faber/010_thechurch.htm

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Richard B. Davis]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 4, 2004)

[quote:92d5fa8416][i:92d5fa8416]Originally posted by Richard B. Davis[/i:92d5fa8416]
John,

I don't disagree with anything you've said. However what I was trying to say is that in the Belgic Confession, as opposed to the Westminster, the notion of an &quot;Invisible&quot; Chuch is not found.

Albeit the poriton I quoted has to do with diserning the true church from the false one. However by saying that the Visible church is an admixture of true and false doctrines and then not going on to speak about how to disern how a church is reckoned to be true, the Westminster and Belgic confessions are at odds with one another. 

Nor do I mean that that the church is not catholic.

Here is an interesting article that deals with this subject:

http://spindleworks.com/library/faber/010_thechurch.htm

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Richard B. Davis] [/quote:92d5fa8416]
Richard, in the Belgic Confession, the notion of the invisible church is covered under Election. The chapters on the &quot;church&quot; are specifically dealing with the external appearance of the church, basically, &quot;how can I find a true faithful church?&quot; This is how the Westminster Confession would define the visible church too. So I don't think there is any disagreement between them. Just a different emphasis. It's like asking in OT times, &quot;where do I find the people of God?&quot; You could point to Palestine and say &quot;over there,&quot; or you could point to Palestine and say &quot;you'll find them [i:92d5fa8416]in[/i:92d5fa8416] there among that people.&quot; Both would be correct, depending on what sense you are using the term.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 4, 2004)

Here's an interesting quote from HC:
Q54: What do you believe concerning the &quot;Holy Catholic Church&quot;?
A54: That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.


Which church is this refering to? The invisible or visible?


----------



## yeutter (Apr 4, 2004)

*Westminister and Heidelberg on the Sacraments*

Tom Skerrit, aka Richard Davis, asked why I thought the Belgic was clearer in setting forth a Calvinist, as opposed to a Zwinglian understanding of the sacraments.

The Belgic in Article 33 talks about God ordaining the sacraments for us and thereby sealing unto us his promices.
Similar language is used in Question 66 of the Heidelberg.

The Westminster in Chapter 27 does not talk about God actively sealing his promices to us in the way the earlier continental confessions do. The truth is implied in the Westminster but not so clearly stated. Room is thereby left open for a Zwinglian understanding. 

The Heidelberg was written by men who were trying to explain the faith they held and how they could both hold that faith and subscribe to the revised version of the Augsburg [1540]


----------



## yeutter (Apr 4, 2004)

*Irish Articles of Religion*

I just checked out the confessions listed on http://www.apuritansmind.com
A very fine comprehensive list.
They did leave out the Irish Articles of Religion. Those Articles are more then a revision of the 39 Articles. B. B. Warfield shows how they were an intermediate step between the faith expressed in the 39 Articles and that expressed in the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Harrie (Apr 10, 2004)

[quote:9971bf4009][i:9971bf4009]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:9971bf4009]
Here's an interesting quote from HC:
Q54: What do you believe concerning the &quot;Holy Catholic Church&quot;?
A54: That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.


Which church is this refering to? The invisible or visible? [/quote:9971bf4009]

None. There is no visible church and there is no invisible.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 10, 2004)

[quote:c61ab3254a][i:c61ab3254a]Originally posted by Harrie[/i:c61ab3254a]
[quote:c61ab3254a][i:c61ab3254a]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:c61ab3254a]
Here's an interesting quote from HC:
Q54: What do you believe concerning the &quot;Holy Catholic Church&quot;?
A54: That out of the whole human race, from the beginning to the end of the world, the Son of God, by His Spirit and Word, gathers, defends and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion in the unity of the true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.


Which church is this refering to? The invisible or visible? [/quote:c61ab3254a]

None. There is no visible church and there is no invisible. [/quote:c61ab3254a]

What does this mean? Forgive me, but it makes no sense at all.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 10, 2004)

I thought it meant that there is only one church who is both visible and invisible.

blade:behead:

[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## Harrie (Apr 10, 2004)

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Forgive me.

Let me quote a part of a translation of &quot;19 stellingen inzake de kerk&quot; from K. Schilder

[quote:5c9c7ad2ff]
1. That a church exists -- this one cannot see, but only &quot;believe.&quot; Every definition of the essence of the church (supposing that it is possible to speak about such an &quot;essence&quot using that which one can see in the world here below, or on the grounds of other axioms than the Scripture has &quot;revealed&quot;, is thus a work of nonbelief or unbelief -- even if many truths may be expressed. &quot;Discovering&quot; or &quot;inventing&quot; truths is pride in this case as well.

2. &quot;The&quot; church has never been observed. No one has ever seen &quot;the&quot; church. No one has ever seen &quot;humanity.&quot; No one has ever seen the Dutch people or any other people. For the church is never &quot;finished,&quot; just as little as humanity or a people are &quot;finished.&quot; Only when the last elect person will have come to faith and will be carrying on a life of faith will &quot;the&quot; church have reached her pleroma [fullness]. Even then, however, the &quot;seeing&quot; of it, in one and the same way of &quot;seeing,&quot; will be possible only on the other side of the boundary that divides this age from the coming one.

3. Strictly speaking, there is thus not yet a &quot;visible&quot; church. There are just temporary and local &quot;parts&quot; and &quot;activities&quot; of such parts of the church to be seen. For example: certain ways of structuring and organization of the life of such parts of the church in a certain period of time (the Old Testament, the New Testament, before and after a reformation) or in a certain place (on earth; in heaven; in the Netherlands, Russia, or Java; and so on).

4. Inasmuch as the concept of &quot;invisible&quot; is determined by the concept &quot;visible,&quot; the need to speak about an &quot;invisible church&quot; is eliminated.
[/quote:5c9c7ad2ff]

Further reading (links):
Nineteen Thesis Concerning The Church - Prof. Dr. K. Schilder
Christ Church and our calling - Dr. R.D. Anderson



[Edited on 4-10-2004 by Harrie]


----------



## JohnV (Apr 10, 2004)

Harrie:
You'll have to help me understand this. I've had some very brief dealings with someone from the CanRC on this, and I don't get it. Does Schilder deny the visible aspect of the church altogether? By the above I would think that he is confusing the two, obviating the visible because it is not the invisible, and then obviating the invisible because the visible has been eliminated. Just because he can't ever see 'the Dutch people' doesn't mean he never sees Dutch people. We see the church when we see a group of believers gathered together as church; so it cannot be that the visible church is not visible. 

I just don't understand Schilder's reasoning here.


----------



## Harrie (Apr 10, 2004)

Shall we start a new topic for these? because this topic is about WCF vs. 3FU I don't want to be too off-topic.


----------



## Harrie (Apr 10, 2004)

I've started one in the theological forum.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 10, 2004)

Harrie:
I've found it, and I'm going to be looking at it over the rest of Sat. and on Monday. I'll get back to you then.


----------

