Differences between Westminster Presbyterians and the Continental Reformed?

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

What are the main differences in beliefs between English/Scottish presbyterians and the Continental Reformed? Between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity?

Sacraments? Polity?

(As I’m working through covenant theology, I’m realizing that paedobaptists are not a monolithic group, so I want to learn more).

Thanks.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I asked a similar question a couple of years ago. You might be interested in the responses, including links to some helpful material on the subject https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/presbyterian-versus-reformed-churches.98881/

 

[Guido's Brother]

The differences are not as great as one might think. There are far more similarities. But I think the biggest difference is that the Three Forms of Unity are considerably earlier than the Westminster Standards. By the time of the Westminster Assembly, many theological issues have been expressed more precisely by Reformed theologians. Take one church denomination that holds strictly to the Westminster Standards and another which holds strictly to the Three Forms of Unity and you would likely find more theological diversity in the TFU churches.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Here’s a reply from Danny Hyde (on another older PB thread) specifically on supposed differences on the keeping of the Lord’s day:

…any doubts about whether the so-called "Continental" view of the Sabbath is in any way less strict than the English view are laid to rest by the Synod of Dort's doctrinal deliverance (things the Synod of the churches declares that are binding on all the churches) of its 164th session on May 17, 1619:

1. There is in the fourth commandment of the divine law a ceremonial and a moral element.
2. The ceremonial element is the rest of the seventh day after creation, and the strict observance of that day imposed especially on the Jewish people.
3. The moral element consists in the fact that a certain definite day is set aside for worship and so much rest as is needful for worship and hallowed meditation.
4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been abolished, the day of the Lord must be solemnly hallowed by Christians.
5. Since the times of the apostles this day has always been observed by the old catholic church.
6. This day must be so consecrated to worship that on that day we rest from all servile works, except those which charity and present necessity require; and also from all such recreations as interfere with worship. (Cited in Howard B. Spaan, Christian Reformed Church Government [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1968], 208.)

 

[JH]

It really depends on what denomination of Presbyterian and Continental Reformed as well. RPCNA and PCA are vastly different, as well as PRC and URC.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Thanks.

If there was a WCF church down the street from, say, Heritage Reformed Congregation church, besides the cultural aspects, what would be the reasons someone would choose one over the other?

They have different polity, correct?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Thanks.

If there was a WCF church down the street from, say, Heritage Reformed Congregation church, besides the cultural aspects, what would be the reasons someone would choose one over the other?

They have different polity, correct?

In essence if you had a choice between a confessional Reformed church that subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity, or a confessional Presbyterian church that holds to the Westminster Standards, I would say both were excellent options. My church subscribes to the 3FU and the WCF.

You might find this article helpful https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=667

 

[Taylor]

My church subscribes to the 3FU and the WCF.

So would you categorize your church as Continensterian or Westminental?

 

[JH]

So would you categorize your church as Continensterian or Westminental?

Won'tinental.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

So would you categorize your church as Continensterian or Westminental?

Our church has a Dutch Reformed heritage, but they subscribe to the WCF, presumably to enjoy good sister church relationships with confessional Presbyterian Churches. Oddly enough they do not subscribe to the WLC or the WSC.

 

[Taylor]

I am a Scotsman. Does that answer your question?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Note I deleted this because I misread the question. I realised you were talking about my church circles, not me personally.

 

[Taylor]

Note I deleted this because I misread the question. I realised you were talking about my church circles, not me personally.

It was all in jest, anyway, brother!

 

[Guido's Brother]

Thanks.

If there was a WCF church down the street from, say, Heritage Reformed Congregation church, besides the cultural aspects, what would be the reasons someone would choose one over the other?

They have different polity, correct?

Yes, there are differences between Dort church polity (on the "Continental" side) and Westminster Presbyterianism. For example, in Dort church polity (based on the Church Order of Dort), the only permanent ecclesiastical assembly is the local consistory. Classes (plural of "classis") and synods only exist when they are being held -- they're temporary assemblies. In Presbyterianism, the presbytery is also a permanent body ("the regional church") and ministers belong to the presbytery rather than the session. In Dort church polity, the "highest" assembly is the consistory. Decisions made at broader assemblies (classis and synod) have to be reviewed by consistories to ensure they're in accordance with the Word of God and the Confessions. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the highest assembly in Presbyterian polity is the General Assembly, rather than the session. There are more differences, but those are a couple that stand out in my mind.

 

[De Jager]

In the one, you wear wooden shoes to worship, the other you wear a kilt.

 

[Edward]

What are the main differences in beliefs between English/Scottish presbyterians and the Continental Reformed?

I recommend The Reformed Confessions Harmonized by Joel Beeke and Sinclair Ferguson Baker Books. Topical side by side comparison of the Three Forms of Unity with the Westminster Standards. (With the Second Helvetic as a bonus)

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

In essence if you had a choice between a confessional Reformed church that subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity, or a confessional Presbyterian church that holds to the Westminster Standards, I would say both were excellent options. My church subscribes to the 3FU and the W

In the one, you wear wooden shoes to worship, the other you wear a kilt.

Scotland >

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Yes, there are differences between Dort church polity (on the "Continental" side) and Westminster Presbyterianism. For example, in Dort church polity (based on the Church Order of Dort), the only permanent ecclesiastical assembly is the local consistory. Classes (plural of "classis") and synods only exist when they are being held -- they're temporary assemblies. In Presbyterianism, the presbytery is also a permanent body ("the regional church") and ministers belong to the presbytery rather than the session. In Dort church polity, the "highest" assembly is the consistory. Decisions made at broader assemblies (classis and synod) have to be reviewed by consistories to ensure they're in accordance with the Word of God and the Confessions. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the highest assembly in Presbyterian polity is the General Assembly, rather than the session. There are more differences, but those are a couple that stand out in my mind.

Great, thank you.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

It was all in jest, anyway, brother!

Actually I was going to banter you for not using the Queen's English (your spelling of 'categorize'), using Judges 17:6 and 21:25 to support my argument, but I thought I must behave myself

 

[Jake]

Thanks.

If there was a WCF church down the street from, say, Heritage Reformed Congregation church, besides the cultural aspects, what would be the reasons someone would choose one over the other?

They have different polity, correct?

If you're looking at fairly strict confessional churches such as a comparison between a Dutch church (e.g., HRC or FRCNA) versus something like a Scottish Presbyterian church (e.g., FCoS(C) or FPCoS) you'll find differences in worship. The Dutch will sing with a piano/organ accompanying in unison; the Scottish will sing a capella in harmony. The Dutch will generally use the Psalter of 1912 (in English speaking congregations) and may also incorporate a few non-Psalm songs (such as Song of Mary and Apostle's Creed) and the Scottish will generally use the Scottish Psalter of 1650 and sing only Psalms (though a small contingency such as in the old FCoS would have done Scripture songs as well, not the Apostle's Creed though). The Dutch will celebrate holy days beyond the Lord's Day, including special services for them; the Scottish will not celebrate days besides the Lord's Day, though they may have special meetings for communion preparatory services and called times of thanksgiving/fasting. The Dutch will only admit full Reformed confessional members to the Lord's Table and membership; the Scottish will admit those with a confession of faith to the Table and membership (to simplify a bit here).

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

If you're looking at fairly strict confessional churches such as a comparison between a Dutch church (e.g., HRC or FRCNA) versus something like a Scottish Presbyterian church (e.g., FCoS(C) or FPCoS) you'll find differences in worship. The Dutch will sing with a piano/organ accompanying in unison; the Scottish will sing a capella in harmony. The Dutch will generally use the Psalter of 1912 (in English speaking congregations) and may also incorporate a few non-Psalm songs (such as Song of Mary and Apostle's Creed) and the Scottish will generally use the Scottish Psalter of 1650 and sing only Psalms (though a small contingency such as in the old FCoS would have done Scripture songs as well, not the Apostle's Creed though). The Dutch will celebrate holy days beyond the Lord's Day, including special services for them; the Scottish will not celebrate days besides the Lord's Day, though they may have special meetings for communion preparatory services and called times of thanksgiving/fasting. The Dutch will only admit full Reformed confessional members to the Lord's Table and membership; the Scottish will admit those with a confession of faith to the Table and membership (to simplify a bit here).

Thank you, sir.

 

[Claudiu]

Painting with very broad brush strokes here, but I do find the Westminster standards more "British" in that they are more analytical and encyclopedic in comparison to the still pointed, yet very pastoral 3FU. (Both are great for those very reasons). Compare the first questions in the catechisms and right off the bat one can sense the difference. And this continues even to questions like the Sabbath. The Heidelberg Catechism has a view of the eschaton and our eternal rest. Compare WLC Q121 and HC Q103.

I found this comment by RSC helpful in providing some of the historical context:

The difference between the WCF and the HC is pedagogical rather than substantial. The difference is also contextual (there’s that word again). The WCF was written in the midst of the English Civil War and the divines felt greatly threatened theologically and practically by antinomianism and so they reacted by nailing down all the loose ends.

E.g., they said what they said about recreation not because they were kill joys but against the a political background, against the King’s Book of Sports. Remember that the assembly was called by Parliament and worked for Parliament. They were fulfilling a civil as well as theological function.

Some of that is true of the committee that revised and presented the HC to Frederick but the situation was rather different. It was 80 years earlier. There was not 8 decades of resistance, practical issues, pastoral problems and no civil war with viral antinomianism to address.

The reason that the Dutch Reformed have been better on the Sabbath has more to do with the way they have historically related to their confession. The American Presbyterians abandoned quia (because it’s biblical) subscription for quatenus (to the degree it’s biblical) very early on and so the discussion has largely been about the degree to which one can disagree with the confession and remain within its bounds. That was never going to be a recipe for Sabbath observance. When the culture began pushing back in light of Modernism and now, in a context of radical subjectivism (late modernism) a quatenus approach (of which, in my view, “strict subscription” and “good faith” are just boundaries or subsets) is ill-suited.

If our goal is to be an inclusive “national” church (e.g., Charles Hodge) then the church is to a significant degree an expression of the culture. If our goal is first of all to be faithful, that is a different orientation altogether. On the Hodge model, Sabbath observance is bound to suffer.

https://heidelblog.net/2013/09/are-there-two-distinct-reformed-views-of-the-sabbath/#comment-145667

 

[Jack K]

In a continental Reformed service, mom discretely passes these down the pew as the sermon begins and everyone in the family takes a mint to suck on during the preaching. But if you're an English Puritan, the practice strikes you as dangerously close to being a worldly amusement.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

In the one, you wear wooden shoes to worship, the other you wear a kilt.

Scotland

There is a link between the Scots and the Dutch. The great Apologist Cornelius Van Til once said "A Dutchman is someone who can buy from a Jew, sell to a Scot, and still make a profit"

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

The Dutch are magicians then haha

This is extra funny to me because I recently moved in the midst of a ton of Dutch people. And my family came from Scotland (in the 1800’s).

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The Dutch are magicians then haha

This is extra funny to me because I recently moved in the midst of a ton of Dutch people. And my family came from Scotland (in the 1800’s).

My response:

As a NZ born Scot worshipping in a Dutch Reformed church, I like to remind my Dutch friends that Scotland, not the Netherlands, is called the 'land of the covenant'

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

My response:

Indeed!

 

[Faythe]

I recommend The Reformed Confessions Harmonized by Joel Beeke and Sinclair Ferguson Baker Books. Topical side by side comparison of the Three Forms of Unity with the Westminster Standards. (With the Second Helvetic as a bonus)

Thanks!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

In a continental Reformed service, mom discretely passes these down the pew as the sermon begins and everyone in the family takes a mint to suck on during the preaching. But if you're an English Puritan, the practice strikes you as dangerously close to being a worldly amusement.
View attachment 8897

I remember visiting a Dutch Reformed church a few years ago and hearing all the invisible candy wrappers crackling at the beginning of the sermon among a sea of straight solemn faces. Kind of funny.

 

[Jack K]

I remember visiting a Dutch Reformed church a few years ago and hearing all the invisible candy wrappers crackling at the beginning of the sermon among a sea of straight solemn faces. Kind of funny.

It's good to know there are still stone-faced Dutchmen keeping time-honored traditions going. Myself, I haven't been to a Sunday service in a solidly Dutch-heritage congregation in decades. Sometimes I miss it. To help keep people awake during sermons, Presbyterians tend to write long books about how to preach well and listen well. The Dutch, however, use coffee and a start-of-sermon sugar rush.