Double Subscription???

[Sebastian Heck]

From those of you who are, for one reason or another, in a situation where you subscribe the Westminster standards as well as the Three Forms of Unity, I would like to hear how that works out practically. Of course, it works the other way round as well.) Maybe you have been ordained and subscribed the Standards, but are now working somewhere where they require you to subscribe the Three Forms of Unity as well (e.g. teaching at a seminary).

I will be working in a European context and we plan to be utilizing the Three Forms of Unity (as we should!) in the church context. At the same time, I will -Lord willing- be ordained subscribing the Westminster Standards.

I am well aware of the enormous synoptical overlap of the two sets of standards. And I love that. But what about the sections where the don't quite match up. Take the sabath, for example: do you just pick the "stricter" one in each case and follow that, hoping thereby to fulfil the requirements of both standards? (But, to stay with that example, it doesn't seem to me that the Heidelberg Catechism, e.g., has simpy a "lower" standard regarding the Sabath - it is a "different" theological view altogether.)

I would like to get you input here, theologically as well as practically. Any of you in this or a similar situation?

 

[larryjf]

We are just starting a seminary where the Board of Directors and faculty must adhere to the teachings common to the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards.

That way adhering to either would be sufficient.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

I understand that. But in that case, it seems to me that no one person is actually required to subscribe (and practise, respectively) BOTH standards. Right? And that's where the rubber meets the road for me.

 

[dannyhyde]

Sebastian,

What is the problem with subscribing both sets of confessions. The example you cited is not an example of a contradiction but a complimentary doctrine. HC 103 calls the Lord's Day the "Sabbath" and the history of practice in continental churches is no less "strict" than Westminster confessing churches. Keep in mind the purpose and context of each confessional document and you can see their harmony even more clearly. Since the HC was intended to be learned by children and preached as the basics of the faith in the Palatinate, it does not go into great detail on the Sabbath, but emphasizes the necessity of public worship as well as points in the direction of eschatology, a la Hebrews 3-4 and Calvin.

 

[larryjf]

That's correct, unless the subscription was essential. You could essentially subscribe to both, and normally that's what is required. I don't know of many places that require subscription without exception. So generally subscription is considered essential.

 

[Pilgrim]

The Reformed Churches in New Zealand (RCNZ) subscribe to both the Westminster Standards and the TFU. I believe this occurred due to a large influx of Dutch immigrants after WWII.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

The example you cited is not an example of a contradiction but a complimentary doctrine.

yes, I believe that, too. But I was just wondering, on a practical basis, if that has ever been a problem. Say there is a case of discipline and the case has to do just with one of those "complimentary" issues in the confession. I know theologically, it should not be a problem, but practically?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sebastian,

Do you know any Churches that practice Double Subscription on a Constitutional Basis. I personally like to read both but when I'm in a Presbyterian Church I technically am bound by only one.

Nevertheless, if I'm studying something, I'll consult the Confession, Catechisms, and then the 3FU.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Rich,
the scenario I am describing is the following: I will be ordained in the PCA, D.V. and then sent back to Germany to found a Reformed church. This German church will be confessional on the basis of the 3FU. And since I have no experience whether there are "things to look out for", potential points of debate, etc. I just wanted to hear what people think and know from experience.

You know, we want to take the confessions (3FU) seriously and not even get into the "exception" practise (as it used to be in Germany for all I know!). We believe in a "quia" aubscription as the only really effective and really confessional way (is "quatenus" subscription at all?). But of course, a "quia" subscription (meaning: I subscribe to the confession BECAUSE it says what the Bible says!) to two sets of confessions will only work if they are saying the same thing in all points - if they differ in any place, you are leading the "quia" ad absurdum.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sorry I didn't read your initial post more carefully Sebastian. That is tricky to be sure. Someone who has studied the Confessions more carefully than I might find a place where a quia subscription to the WCF might conflict with the 3FU but I've never noticed any places personally.

 

[AV1611]

From those of you who are, for one reason or another, in a situation where you subscribe the Westminster standards as well as the Three Forms of Unity, I would like to hear how that works out practically. Of course, it works the other way round as well.) Maybe you have been ordained and subscribed the Standards, but are now working somewhere where they require you to subscribe the Three Forms of Unity as well (e.g. teaching at a seminary).

I will be working in a European context and we plan to be utilizing the Three Forms of Unity (as we should!) in the church context. At the same time, I will -Lord willing- be ordained subscribing the Westminster Standards.

I am well aware of the enormous synoptical overlap of the two sets of standards. And I love that. But what about the sections where the don't quite match up. Take the sabath, for example: do you just pick the "stricter" one in each case and follow that, hoping thereby to fulfil the requirements of both standards? (But, to stay with that example, it doesn't seem to me that the Heidelberg Catechism, e.g., has simpy a "lower" standard regarding the Sabath - it is a "different" theological view altogether.)

I would like to get you input here, theologically as well as practically. Any of you in this or a similar situation?

I have personally held to the TFU (minus Articles 30 and 31 of the Belgic Confession althogh I am rethinking them now) for around 18-24 months. I however have difficulty in subscribing to the Westminster standards for a number of reasons most notably the issue surrounding the covenant.

In the WS the covenant is spelt out in a fair amount of detail whilst the TFU are indeed covenantal yet they do not set forth a theology of the covenant is a great amount of detail. What I have noticed is that the Westminster side are far more legalistic than the Continentals in some respects and I am not refering to legalism with regards dancing, alcohol etc but rather the Westminster divines were far more willing to specify to the tiniest detail the intratrinitarian terms and conditions than the continentals who were more willing to leave the covenant defined more interms of a bund. This does not mean there are exceptions for some continental divines were very Westminsterian but (a) the opposite is not the case and (b) the confessional documents reflect the broad distinctions.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

For a previous discussion along these lines, see this thread.

For a PRCA perspective on the differences between the WCF and the 3FU, see here.

For a 17th century Dutch Puritan's perspective on the WCF and HC, see here.

Also from another thread:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

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.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

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.

A couple of additional observations:

* Like the WCF and WLC, the Belgic Confession has been amended by some churches. It would be useful when discussing these creeds to clarify whether one is referring to the original or amended versions.

* Besides the 3FU, there are other Continental Reformed creeds -- quite a few actually. I have found much that I agree with in the Second Helvetic Confession (though I would have to take exception to part of Chap. 24), for example. It's worth remembering that the 3FU are not the only Continental Reformed creeds.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

Thanks for the links, Andrew. Though I wasn't specifically looking for a comparison of the confessions. I am more interested in the practicality of double subscription or whatever you want to call it.
But I am quite encouraged by the tendencies (I am reading in the other threads you mentioned) of some to actually want to adopt both the 3FU and th West. Standards. This is the way we'll go, though we will probably not use the WS publically, but work with the 3FU.
Of course, it is not fair to compare the HC with the WC. The HC is not meant to be and will not be used solitarily, but in concert with the 3FU. Then you have essentially the same ground covered as with the WS.
What I love about the 3FU is the historical depth and different situations in which all three originated. WS obviously are pretty one dimensional in comparison!
But the systematic thoroughness and depth of the WS coupled with the pastoral warmth and diversity of the 3FU - that's the way to go for us!

 

[JohnV]

Sebastian:

I began in the Continental Reformed, and did Profession of Faith under the 3FU. I have since joined a Presbyterian church, which is under the WS. So I am subscribed to both.

I have found that being subscribed to both is not a problem. The problems that have come up in either set of standards have not been about nit-picky things, but about major differences that cross both at the same time. The real problems are caused by those people leaving the faith, not of those who find things to differ on.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

One area (an example) in which I am not sure how it would be handled is the covenant of works. In WCF ch. 7 it is explicit, but in the HC it is not present explicitly. Do we now argue that it is there implicitly so that we can teach on it as an essential doctrine even within the context of a 3FU church? Or do we treat it as non-essential (and not confessional) because it is not explicitly mentioned in the 3FU - and then get in trouble with our ordination vows on the basis of the WCF (where I will not be taking exception regarding the Covenant of Works)?

 

[JohnV]

Sebastian:

The Confessional standards are for unity in doctrine and worship and fellowship. That is their aim. If there were a third such standard (which there is) then there would be differences among the three. Admittedly the third does pose more serious problems, but that does not mean that there cannot be fellowship and worship of the one true God among them. If we seek to divide God's flock according to our own persuasions, or to require of men what God does not require, then such problems are insurmountable.

I have held to the idea that such differences are opportunities for joy to the fellowship. It is a call to learn and submit to God, to have one's own beliefs challenged and corrected by none other than the Word of God.

It seems to me, though, that the Covenant of Works is indeed taught in the 3FU churches. At least I was taught it in my catechism classes in my Dutch Reformed church.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

The Confessional standards are for unity in doctrine and worship and fellowship. That is their aim. If there were a third such standard (which there is) then there would be differences among the three. Admittedly the third does pose more serious problems, but that does not mean that there cannot be fellowship and worship of the one true God among them. If we seek to divide God's flock according to our own persuasions, or to require of men what God does not require, then such problems are insurmountable.

I don't quite understand how that answers my question. What do you mean by third standard?

]It seems to me, though, that the Covenant of Works is indeed taught in the 3FU churches. At least I was taught it in my catechism classes in my Dutch Reformed church.

Well, yes. That's what I meant by my explicit/implicit distinction. Do you mean as a kind of "good and necessary consequence" flowing from the 3FU? Then I tend to agree.

Scott Clark seems to be doing something like that here.

Nonetheless, I feel like it still does ot answer my question. Sorry to be so insistent.

 

[JohnV]

No need to be sorry, Sebastian. I likely addressed my concerns from your question more so than the question itself. What I was trying to communicate is that you have to answer that question for yourself, seeing that you have brothers in the faith who may differ with your own convictions.

However, in regard to your question about "'good and necessary consequence' flowing from the 3FU" I can confidently say that at the time I was going through catechism instruction my church did not recognize such a possibility. They woud only recognize "good and necessary consequence" flowing from the Word of God, and would not have seen the 3FU in that light.

The third that I was referring to was the Reformed Baptist confession. We know that it has more serious differences than exist between the other two. But we do not refuse Baptists from worship among us on that account. We have differences, but they do not have to divide us more than necessary.

It has been the case in my own experience that I have had more differences with the person next to me in the pew in my own church than I would have with Baptists. Bob Howes and I worshiped together one Sunday, and it was beautiful to do so. For me it was a memorable highlight in my life. But you can be sure that neither of us left our doctrines at the door; not on your life. We both brought them before the feet of Christ that we might each and both be instructed. Now we're both the better for it. For this occurred during a time when my own church rejected me for holding firmly to the vows that I made.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Sebastian,

Here is a better link for the notes on the HC. The old site could go away at any minute. I'm surprised it's still up as I haven't paid any fees or used it for a year.

I think we need to query the premise of the question -- which some have done implicitly.

It is true that, in the modern period, there has developed a certain divergence between the practice of some who adhere to the Westminster Standards and the practice of some who adhere to the Three Forms.

Notice the qualifications: "modern period" and "some."

Is the divergence inherent in the documents themselves? No, not if we account for the way they were read by their authors AND their different historical circumstances. The WS were drafted 80 years after the HC and almost 30 years after the Synod of Dort. Reformed theology continued to develop precision in during those periods so that the WS are more precise on some ethical and theological issues than the Three Forms, but they exist on a continuum.

If we look at how they were both understood in the 17th century, one doesn't see a great deal of difference in the practice of the Three Forms churches and the WS churches.

Even in the modern period it has often been the case that the Dutch Reformed (more than the Germans for a variety of reasons that I don't have to explain to Sebastian) have been stricter about the Sabbath than "American" Presbyterians (i.e., those who are part of the American church and not just Scots-Irish transplanted to the USA).

At WSC we all subscribe both sets of documents and we get along fine. We do, sometimes, have interesting discussions about practice. "Oh you do it that way? Oh well, we do it this way...." but it's usually about minutia of polity more than substance or even serious practical issues.

The real question is whether a congregation, her consistory/session is going to be confessional. If they (altogether) are committed to thinking, worshipping, and living confessionally then I think the practical issues shouldn't be enormous.

There might be an issue if a "neo-Puritan" (I'm thinking of a fellow I met when I first came to sem in '84) fellow starts haranguing people for not keeping the Sabbath exactly as he does or another has a different view of liberty than another, but I think Paul addresses this in 1 Cor and in Col 2.

Really, as I see it, there was a great deal of unity on the substance of the Reformed faith before the 18th century. Gradually, over the 18th century, that unity broke down under the influence of revivalism and Enlightenment influences (rationalism and pietism).

When asked about principle however, we should be on the same page, as they say. That should lead to unity of practice.

Honestly, in most of the cases where practice diverges, I find that there isn't really unity of principle. I can get students and others to recite the RPW but they don't always "get it," because they continue to act like Lutherans when it comes to worship. The same is true of the Sabbath. Sunday is the Lord's Day. It belongs to him by virtue of creation and redemption. It's not mine. It's not ours. It's his. Once people really buy that basic principle, the rest -- no pun intended -- is easy.

rsc

 

[JohnV]

After thought: this should have come first.

There are three things here that are being weighed against each other: the WS; the 3FU; and my personal convictions. How I feel they are in the right order is that where the first two differ is the church's responsibility; where I differ with either one, whether it is that I agree with the one and not the other, or disagree with both, is secondary to this.

I only will differ with the church on matters that are outrightly against their own standards. When I differ with my church it will be on solid grounds. But you can be sure that by then it won't be about such things as some churches differ on with integrity and a genuine faith. But where I differ with my church or with brothers and sisters in the church I will respect the other just as I would like to be respected for my beliefs. I will expect that both sides will seek what is higher than each of us rather than seeking to establish our own. In other words, if I'm right then the truth wins out; and if I'm wrong and am corrected then the truth wins out again. If we all seek for more holiness even in our thoughts and ideas and convictions, then we are all of benefit to each other. We must refuse to be a cause of stumbling to each other.

Concerning the difference of which you speak I have my own mind about that. But that's as far as it goes. I don't need to say anything about it unless it is in an atmosphere of mutual growth in the truth. And without the churches getting together to resolve this, my lonely voice is of little use.

 

[JohnV]

Well said, Dr Scott.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

FYI For what it's worth, The Confessional Presbyterian will have in its 2007 issue due out in early October, an article entitled "John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues," by Stewart E. Lauer.