AlexanderHenderson1647
Puritan Board Freshman
This is a long read, but something I'm thinking of. A friend recently informed me that Dr. R. Scott Clark has coined a quaint term: The 6 Forms of Unity, to wit, the combination of the oldie goldies of the Reformed world, the best of the continent and the Puritan stripe as well - Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Larger Catechism, Westminster Shorter Catechism, The Canons of Dordt, The Belgic Confession, and The Heidelberg Catechism. I'd double down and include the Solemn League and Covenant, and the Directories for Publick & Family Worship. So I'm thinking about a 9FU.
It seems to me that those two sets of documents well compliment each other. Where they are in conflict or the other is silent, putting those two in the same room will allow them to rub the rough edges off one another. For a couple examples: WCF/LC/SC could use help in the Assurance dept. - the Heidelberg amply supplies as much. Where the WCF lays down a cautious approach to the death of infants, the Canons proffer great charity toward the children of believers. The 3FU is in need of strong Sabbath theology. That's readily found in the Westminster Standards. 3FU could give great support of the unconditional nature of the Covenant of Grace (helping to keep a watch on the term "condition,") and the Westminster could bring the Covenant of Works to the table as a suitable term for Jehovah's first dealing w/Adam & Eve (while I don't think they contradict, the two together could put Federal Vision to bed.) The Heidelberg statement on the issue of images would sound darling with the Westminster statements which address the same. While no fault can be found with Westminster's handling of Arminianism, what strength would be lent from the Canons of Dordt? The witty, consummate polemic nails down the doctrines of Grace. Who cannot love the savory, sharp styling of the Belgic with Biblical responses not just footnoted but placed within the text with commentary surrounding to buttress the ironclad Westminster posing? Article 36's original language with Westminster's 1647 "Of the Civil Magistrate" would put us on track for proper church/state relations. The paleo-Dutch handling of "common grace" (thinking Protestant Reformed/RPCGA understanding) would put the Scotch/Puritan on a more solid footing. Westminster's Covenanting would be my preferred understanding of society's responsibility to confessing Christ nationally and I don't see that it violates 3FU (at least not in the early days of it's usage.) Heidelberg's personal, devotional style is darling on the tongue of the saint! Where it isn't better said in the 3FU, the Westminster can teach them about singing the Psalms...and them only! These are a few I'll name.
I think it'd be Scottish Church who holds 1647's documents adopting nothing other than the Canons. They alone are worth their weight in GOLD! While the thought has been long on my mind, reading "The Work of the Holy Spirit" by Drs Englesma and Hanko really calcified it. The book is a publication of a set of lectures on the topic of the third person of the Trinity and His ministry, work, identity, etc. I understand that Puritan Seminary honors both traditions.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm fast becoming a Scutchman.
Well, it shouldn't be hard to understand. I've long been committed to the 1647s and I've had a pretty steady diet of Englesma, Hoekesema, Hanko and Langerak lately.
So, now that I've alienated both my Westminsterian friends and the Dutch folk too, tell me what you think? Could you see the two (or a contingent from both) coming together? Would you (from whichever camp you're from, assuming one or the other) welcome better ecclesiastical relations and sharing of standards with the other? Is there something I'm missing that you'd add? I certainly don't have a solid understanding or training in either set and can't say that I agree completely with both. So, please note that this man is a whelp in the faith and am still thinking through most of these matters.
It seems to me that those two sets of documents well compliment each other. Where they are in conflict or the other is silent, putting those two in the same room will allow them to rub the rough edges off one another. For a couple examples: WCF/LC/SC could use help in the Assurance dept. - the Heidelberg amply supplies as much. Where the WCF lays down a cautious approach to the death of infants, the Canons proffer great charity toward the children of believers. The 3FU is in need of strong Sabbath theology. That's readily found in the Westminster Standards. 3FU could give great support of the unconditional nature of the Covenant of Grace (helping to keep a watch on the term "condition,") and the Westminster could bring the Covenant of Works to the table as a suitable term for Jehovah's first dealing w/Adam & Eve (while I don't think they contradict, the two together could put Federal Vision to bed.) The Heidelberg statement on the issue of images would sound darling with the Westminster statements which address the same. While no fault can be found with Westminster's handling of Arminianism, what strength would be lent from the Canons of Dordt? The witty, consummate polemic nails down the doctrines of Grace. Who cannot love the savory, sharp styling of the Belgic with Biblical responses not just footnoted but placed within the text with commentary surrounding to buttress the ironclad Westminster posing? Article 36's original language with Westminster's 1647 "Of the Civil Magistrate" would put us on track for proper church/state relations. The paleo-Dutch handling of "common grace" (thinking Protestant Reformed/RPCGA understanding) would put the Scotch/Puritan on a more solid footing. Westminster's Covenanting would be my preferred understanding of society's responsibility to confessing Christ nationally and I don't see that it violates 3FU (at least not in the early days of it's usage.) Heidelberg's personal, devotional style is darling on the tongue of the saint! Where it isn't better said in the 3FU, the Westminster can teach them about singing the Psalms...and them only! These are a few I'll name.
I think it'd be Scottish Church who holds 1647's documents adopting nothing other than the Canons. They alone are worth their weight in GOLD! While the thought has been long on my mind, reading "The Work of the Holy Spirit" by Drs Englesma and Hanko really calcified it. The book is a publication of a set of lectures on the topic of the third person of the Trinity and His ministry, work, identity, etc. I understand that Puritan Seminary honors both traditions.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm fast becoming a Scutchman.
Well, it shouldn't be hard to understand. I've long been committed to the 1647s and I've had a pretty steady diet of Englesma, Hoekesema, Hanko and Langerak lately.So, now that I've alienated both my Westminsterian friends and the Dutch folk too, tell me what you think? Could you see the two (or a contingent from both) coming together? Would you (from whichever camp you're from, assuming one or the other) welcome better ecclesiastical relations and sharing of standards with the other? Is there something I'm missing that you'd add? I certainly don't have a solid understanding or training in either set and can't say that I agree completely with both. So, please note that this man is a whelp in the faith and am still thinking through most of these matters.
