Essential differences between the WCF and 3 Forms of Unity

[newcreature]

Can anyone give me a very brief rundown on the essential differences between the Westminster Confession and Three Forms of Unity? I have recently began a study of the WCF with the children, and I have loosely subscribed to this confession based on my husband's confession. I have recently discovered, however, that he now subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity. I am not sure when he changed his confession, and because we are estranged I am not able to ask him about it.

I only need the basics. Because I have not studied either confession, too much detail will not be beneficial at this time. Thank you.

 

[Andres]

They are both good confessions and will not differ in any major theological area that I can think of. Generally the Westminster Standards are the confessional document of Presbyterian churches such as the PCA, OPC, and ARP. The Three Forms of Unity is the confession of the Continental Reformed churches such as the URC, CRC, and HRC. With that said, most of those churches would have no problem with either confession. For example, about 3 years ago, our OPC church did a study through the Heidelberg Catechism during our Lord's day evening class.

 

[Scott1]

A PCA Pastor who I respect greatly once told me, "it's the same theology."

It's not uncommon for churches that confess the Westminster standards to also quote and recite in response in worship the:

1) Heidelberg Catechism
2) Canons of Dordt
3) Belgaic Confession

 

[arapahoepark]

Here's a good book on the matter:
Amazon.com: Reformed Confessions Harmonized (9780801052224): Joel R. Beeke, Sinclair B. Ferguson: Books

 

[Somerset]

I think the signature of one of our minister members says his chuch subscribes to both the WCF and the Three Forms of Unity.

 

[davenporter]

I noticed the Belgic Confession doesn't take the same stance on the Lord's Day with regard to recreations, but I was told by someone (I think my pastor) that in practice the Continentals held to the same standard of the Lord's Day in general. However, I also heard some URC pastors on their podcast show called Sinners and Saints ridiculing the WCF for its stance against Sabbath-day recreations.

Do those who hold the 3FU typically hold less strictly to the sanctification of the Sabbath? Or are these URC pastors on Sinners & Saints an anomaly?

 

[Dearly Bought]

Can anyone give me a very brief rundown on the essential differences between the Westminster Confession and Three Forms of Unity? I have recently began a study of the WCF with the children, and I have loosely subscribed to this confession based on my husband's confession. I have recently discovered, however, that he now subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity. I am not sure when he changed his confession, and because we are estranged I am not able to ask him about it.

I only need the basics. Because I have not studied either confession, too much detail will not be beneficial at this time. Thank you.

Here are a few differences in emphasis, structure, and content to be aware of:

• The Heidelberg Catechism is written to speak from the personal perspective of the catechumen (e.g., "What is thy only comfort") whereas the Westminster catechisms do not use this personal perspective (e.g., "What is man's chief end?"). The Westminster catechisms have answers which may generally stand on their own whereas the Heidelberg's answers generally require the question to be understood.
• The Heidelberg is structured according to a Law-Gospel-Law sequence (or Guilt-Grace-Gratitude) with the Apostles Creed, Ten Commandments, and Lord's Prayer prominently featured, whereas the Westminster catechisms add a prolegomena section (things which must first be discussed such as man's chief end, the source of revelation, and the nature of God) before getting into the guilt, grace, and gratitude. The Westminster catechisms do not use the Apostles' Creed.
• The Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards use different language concerning whether assurance belongs to the essence of faith. I personally do not think they are at odds, but are both describing the ways in which a trust in Christ's work may be present in the believer while the experience of knowing one's personal appropriation of that work may be subject to doubts.
• The Westminster Standards are more comprehensive than the Three Forms, including Sabbatarian and covenant theologies which are present only in seed form in the Three Forms.
• The invisible/visible church distinction is featured prominently throughout the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms do not use this language, although the substance is present in Belgic Article 29.
• The Belgic Confession features Scripture quotations in the text, whereas the Westminster Confession had prooftexts appended.
• The Canons of Dort seem to go slightly further than the Westminster Confession on the subject of the children of believers that die in infancy ("godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy" vs. "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit").
• The Three Forms use more of Calvin's distinctive language regarding the Lord's Supper.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I noticed the Belgic Confession doesn't take the same stance on the Lord's Day with regard to recreations, but I was told by someone (I think my pastor) that in practice the Continentals held to the same standard of the Lord's Day in general. However, I also heard some URC pastors on their podcast show called Sinners and Saints ridiculing the WCF for its stance against Sabbath-day recreations.

Do those who hold the 3FU typically hold less strictly to the sanctification of the Sabbath? Or are these URC pastors on Sinners & Saints an anomaly?

There are differences among 3FU folks because of differences in original texts of the Heidelberg and the translated wording. The debated German term from Heidelberg Q. 103 is "Feiertag," which has been translated as feast day, day of rest, and Sabbath. Obviously the translation "Sabbath" lends itself most clearly to a Sabbatarian practice. You will find different views among different denominations and even individuals. I would say that groups such as the HRC and FRCNA would be the most Sabbatarian. I'd say that the URC and CanRC would contain a mixture, with more emphasis on attendance at morning and evening worship services than concerns about the remainder of the day. The RCUS does not seem to be very Sabbatarian in general.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I do not think that the two sets of Standards are in any sense disagreeable or contradictory. There are slight differences in what specifically is confessed by each, at particular points. And the places where they "leave out" something or other that the other states more pointedly is sometimes treated as an essential difference by people who are trying to find confusion (for some reason).

When the Westminster divines met in the 1640s, there were still alive some men who had been invited to Dort from England as observers in 1618-19. Certainly, it is the case that as the divines crafted the WCF, they were very interested in keeping their statements in line with their fellow Reformed confessors on the Continent.

Unfortunately, this can lead to a lazy dismissal of what is actually a more biblical position, in favor of a position that has less biblical support (but happens to be more agreeable to the disputant's opinions). But, since the doctrine isn't confessed together, so long as it does not contradict Scripture or strike at the vitals of the common confession (in the judgment of the church), various opinions are allowed to stand among those who share a confession.

If there was a church/denomination that was organized, and they combined the standards of Presbyterians and Reformed in one Standard--calling it The Six Forms of Unity, I think they would find no place where the two sets taught opposingly.

 

[dudley]

I do not think that the two sets of Standards are in any sense disagreeable or contradictory. There are slight differences in what specifically is confessed by each, at particular points. And the places where they "leave out" something or other that the other states more pointedly is sometimes treated as an essential difference by people who are trying to find confusion (for some reason).

When the Westminster divines met in the 1640s, there were still alive some men who had been invited to Dort from England as observers in 1618-19. Certainly, it is the case that as the divines crafted the WCF, they were very interested in keeping their statements in line with their fellow Reformed confessors on the Continent.

Unfortunately, this can lead to a lazy dismissal of what is actually a more biblical position, in favor of a position that has less biblical support (but happens to be more agreeable to the disputant's opinions). But, since the doctrine isn't confessed together, so long as it does not contradict Scripture or strike at the vitals of the common confession (in the judgment of the church), various opinions are allowed to stand among those who share a confession.

If there was a church/denomination that was organized, and they combined the standards of Presbyterians and Reformed in one Standard--calling it The Six Forms of Unity, I think they would find no place where the two sets taught opposingly.

I agree with Rev. Bruce when he said: “If there was a church/denomination that was organized, and they combined the standards of Presbyterians and Reformed in one Standard--calling it The Six Forms of Unity, I think they would find no place where the two sets taught opposingly.”
I am not only now a Protestant I am a Presbyterian who is now also a 5 point Calvinist because I believe firmly in the doctrines of Grace and I subscribe to the Westminster Standards. I confess the Original Westminster Confession of Faith and I also subscribe to the Three forms of Unity and The entire Reformed Book of Confessions as a Reformed Presbyterian.

 

[newcreature]

There are differences among 3FU folks because of differences in original texts of the Heidelberg and the translated wording. The debated German term from Heidelberg Q. 103 is "Feiertag," which has been translated as feast day, day of rest, and Sabbath. Obviously the translation "Sabbath" lends itself most clearly to a Sabbatarian practice. You will find different views among different denominations and even individuals. I would say that groups such as the HRC and FRCNA would be the most Sabbatarian. I'd say that the URC and CanRC would contain a mixture, with more emphasis on attendance at morning and evening worship services than concerns about the remainder of the day. The RCUS does not seem to be very Sabbatarian in general.

This makes a lot of sense. We often engaged in grocery shopping, going out to eat, house cleaning chores, and watching NFL football after service on Sunday. As long as we felt we worshiped and rested, we were justified in observing the Sabbath. Maybe the 3FU was more in line with his convictions.

Thank you all for your input. I will now have something more to research as I continue my studies.