Is Westminster An Improvement Over 3FU?
- Thread starter KMK
- Start date
- Status
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
I was taught the same thing, that the WCF improved upon the 3 forms, that it is more complete.
It is mostly the Dutch or Continental churches that use the 3 forms and the ones I know don't seem as fond of the WCF. Whereas the WCF is predominantly used by Presbyterians.
I believe the 3 forms was written by the Dutch area churches and the WCF committee was mostly Presbyterians.
It is mostly the Dutch or Continental churches that use the 3 forms and the ones I know don't seem as fond of the WCF. Whereas the WCF is predominantly used by Presbyterians.
I believe the 3 forms was written by the Dutch area churches and the WCF committee was mostly Presbyterians.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
I presume you're asking about churches which are outside the Continental Reformed traditions (e.g. outside the RCA/CRC/URCNA/OCRC/CanRef/RCUS denominations, which derive from that branch of Reformed Christendom).
Those denominations will all hold to the 3FU for historical reasons (and since they wouldn't necessarily agree that the Westminster Standards represent an improvement). Similarly, churches deriving from Scottish Presbyterian roots will all hold the WCF (though not necessarily would all agree that the Westminster Standards are necessarily an improvement).
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
That is correct Erick. The only thing that truly separates the 3FU and WCF are there geographical, chronological, and political connections.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I posted my above post before I noticed Todd's comments.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I did as well.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm not sure that the Westminster Confession, by itself is an improvement over the 3FU, but I do think the Westminster Standards, together as one, are more thorough than the 3FU (especially when the Larger Catechism is considered).
I was raised on the 3FU and still have a very fond place for them, though I now reference the Westminster Standards more often.
I was raised on the 3FU and still have a very fond place for them, though I now reference the Westminster Standards more often.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I use the Heidelberg Catechism quite regularly. I also like the Second Helvetic which is not part of the 3FU
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Ben, what is a good, clean online version of the Second Helvetic Confession? Are there any that include Scripture proofs?
jaybird0827
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have studied both. I agree that the Westminster Standards are more comprehensive than 3FU.
No, I would not say the WCOF is an improvement it is simply a different standard. Many reformed denominations would subscribe to both the WCOF and The Three Forms of Unity. There would be no contradiction between the two standards, but as Daniel stated it has to do with the background of the framers. These standards were all written at different times and for different situations.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Therein lies a problem for some people. We must remember that there are areas of doctrine that Christians are free to disagree over. Some believe that the WCF forces one to adhere to certain beliefs that Christians are free to disagree over (e.g.the Pope being the Antichrist). Hence, the WCF potentially splits up believers who should be publicly unified (as an expression of their unity in Christ). It can be a pity that when believers have so much of the reformed faith in common their confession forces them to be apart institutionally.
Blessings.
I guess that all depends on your definition of 'Reformed'.
I have heard this criticism of the WCF/LBC as well but it usually comes from the anti-confessional camp. What are the criteria for establishing what goes into a confession and what is left out?
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Are you sure? There is some differing opinions regarding the means of grace. The Scots say three the Dutch say two.
Last edited:
Galatians220
Inactive User
Question 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism... Marriage Divorce Remarriage
I like the 3FU, especially the Canons of Dordt and the Heidelberg Catechism... My church, though, is WCF-dominant, although the Canons are often referred to in sermons, etc. I have therefore, but not for ethnic reasons as this is the U.S. and ours is becoming an "indigenously American" church, thrown in my lot with the WCF, except for one or two things here and there.
Didn't the newer version of the WCF expunge the language regarding the Pope being the Antichrist? I was told that in the long ago, when I was a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Are we supposed to state in a confession who "the Antichrist" is - or are there many Antichrists? (1 John 2:18; 2 John 7 et alii...)
Also, I have this question, as I'm "just learning" in so many aspects: why are confessions or catechisms so relied upon? Can a person just be a thoroughly Reformed Christian and rely upon the Bible alone? Why and/or why not? (Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism in grade school, I sort of freak when I hear catechisms and confessions being so heavily depended upon...
)Thank you, Pastor Klein, for starting this thread.
Margaret
Also, I have this question, as I'm "just learning" in so many aspects: why are confessions or catechisms so relied upon? Can a person just be a thoroughly Reformed Christian and rely upon the Bible alone? Why and/or why not? (Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism in grade school, I sort of freak when I hear catechisms and confessions being so heavily depended upon...
Thank you, Pastor Klein, for starting this thread.
Margaret
Relying on the confessions and relying the Bible are not mutually exclusive. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) not individual Christians. The confessions are simply a systematic representation of the church's understanding of Biblical truth.
Also, the confessions allow us to have discussions about large doctrines because we are already convinced of the truth of the details. We can discuss the differences between justification and sanctification, for example, without reinventing the wheel by quoting Rom chapters 3-8 each time.
Rich has written a very good defense of confessionalism on the home page of PB.
Davidius
Inactive User
Are you sure? There is some differing opinions regarding the means of grace. The Scots say two the Dutch say three.
I thought it was the other way around: the Dutch acknowledge the Word and the Sacraments, whereas Wesminster includes Prayer. Someone help!
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Are you sure? There is some differing opinions regarding the means of grace. The Scots say two the Dutch say three.
I thought it was the other way around: the Dutch acknowledge the Word and the Sacraments, whereas Wesminster includes Prayer. Someone help!
Woops, you are right, I got them backwards:
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Also, I have this question, as I'm "just learning" in so many aspects: why are confessions or catechisms so relied upon? Can a person just be a thoroughly Reformed Christian and rely upon the Bible alone? Why and/or why not? (Having been forced to memorize the Baltimore Catechism in grade school, I sort of freak when I hear catechisms and confessions being so heavily depended upon...
Thank you, Pastor Klein, for starting this thread.
Margaret
Relying on the confessions and relying the Bible are not mutually exclusive. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) not individual Christians. The confessions are simply a systematic representation of the church's understanding of Biblical truth.
Also, the confessions allow us to have discussions about large doctrines because we are already convinced of the truth of the details. We can discuss the differences between justification and sanctification, for example, without reinventing the wheel by quoting Rom chapters 3-8 each time.
Rich has written a very good defense of confessionalism on the home page of PB.
To say that we rely upon the Bible alone (or rather rely upon our interpretatation of the Bible alone) - in the sense of Solo Scriptura (not Sola Scriptura) - forgets that the church did not start with us. While we may revise the testimony of the church, we have to listen to it. If the wheel is broken it must be fixed, not re-invented.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
